Instructed Rehearsal Strategies' Influence on Deaf Memory Processing Congenitally deaf subjects were compared with normal-hearing subjects on short-term retention accuracy and correct response latency. The subjects paced themselves through serial lists of consonant letters six- or seven-items long. Presentation of each list was followed by a position-probe test requiring the subject to specify where in the list a ... Tutorial
Tutorial  |   March 01, 1976
Instructed Rehearsal Strategies' Influence on Deaf Memory Processing
 
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • John M. Belmont
    Kansas University Medical Center, Kansas City
  • Michael A. Karchmer
    Kansas University Medical Center, Kansas City
  • Paul A. Pilkonis
    Stanford University, California
Article Information
Tutorials
Tutorial   |   March 01, 1976
Instructed Rehearsal Strategies' Influence on Deaf Memory Processing
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, March 1976, Vol. 19, 36-47. doi:10.1044/jshr.1901.36
History: Received December 20, 1974 , Accepted May 20, 1975
 
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, March 1976, Vol. 19, 36-47. doi:10.1044/jshr.1901.36
History: Received December 20, 1974; Accepted May 20, 1975

Congenitally deaf subjects were compared with normal-hearing subjects on short-term retention accuracy and correct response latency. The subjects paced themselves through serial lists of consonant letters six- or seven-items long. Presentation of each list was followed by a position-probe test requiring the subject to specify where in the list a particular letter had appeared. The subjects were first observed while generating their own input strategies (free strategy). In subsequent sessions they adopted instructed rehearsal strategies involving primary and secondary memory components. Overall, the normal-hearing subjects were more accurate and responded faster than the deaf subjects. Instructing rehearsal strategies resulted in immediate gains on these measures for both groups. For both measures the deaf subjects became at least as proficient as the normal-hearing subjects had been under free strategy. The patterns of correct response latencies for the groups revealed strikingly different comparisons for primary and secondary memory. Following strategy instruction, latencies for the terminal list items never differed for the two groups, indicating that primary memory in the deaf is fully intact. However, the deaf responded slower on the first items of the list, indicating secondary memory deficiencies.

Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access