Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1754369
Research Article

Working Memory for Faces among Individuals with Congenital Deafness

Eyal Heled 
1   Department of Psychology, Ariel University, Ariel, Israel
2   Department of Neurological Rehabilitation, Sheba Medical Center, Ramat-Gan, Israel
,
Maayon Ohayon
1   Department of Psychology, Ariel University, Ariel, Israel
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Studies examining face processing among individuals with congenital deafness show inconsistent results that are often accounted for by sign language skill. However, working memory for faces as an aspect of face processing has not yet been examined in congenital deafness.

Purpose To explore working memory for faces among individuals with congenital deafness who are skilled in sign language.

Research Design A quasi-experimental study of individuals with congenital deafness and a control group.

Study Sample Sixteen individuals with congenital deafness who are skilled in sign language and 18 participants with intact hearing, matched for age, and education.

Intervention The participants performed two conditions of the N-back test in ascending difficulty (i.e., 1-back and 2-back).

Data Collection and Analysis Levene's and Shapiro–Wilk tests were used to assess group homoscedasticity and normality, respectively. A two-way repeated measures analysis of variance was applied to compare the groups in response time and accuracy of the N-back test, as well as Pearson correlation between response time and accuracy, and sign language skill duration.

Results The congenital deafness group performed better than controls, as was found in the response time but not in the accuracy variables. However, an interaction effect showed that this pattern was significant for the 1-back but not for the 2-back condition in the response time but not the accuracy. Further, there was a marginal effect in response time but a significant one in accuracy showing the 2-back was performed worse than the 1-back. No significant correlation was found between response time and accuracy, and sign language skill duration.

Conclusions Face processing advantage associated with congenital deafness is dependent on cognitive load, but sign language duration does not affect this trend. In addition, response time and accuracy are not equally sensitive to performance differences in the N-back test.

Keywords

congenital deafness - face processing - N-back test - working memory - sign language

Conflict of Interest

None declared.


Disclaimer

Any mention of a product, service, or procedure in the Journal of the American Academy of Audiology does not constitute an endorsement of the product, service, or procedure by the American Academy of Audiology.




Publication History

Received: 07 September 2021

Accepted: 17 June 2022

Article published online:
29 November 2022

© 2022. American Academy of Audiology. This article is published by Thieme.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Braun A. The Speaker Identification Ability of Blind and Sighted Listeners: An Empirical Investigation. Fachmedien Wiesbaden: Springer VS;. 2016
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Dye MWG, Bavelier D. Attentional enhancements and deficits in deaf populations: an integrative review. Restor Neurol Neurosci 2010; 28 (02) 181-192
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Lopez-Crespo G, Daza MT, Méndez-Lopez M. Visual working memory in deaf children with diverse communication modes: improvement by differential outcomes. Res Dev Disabil 2012; 33: 362-368
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Megreya AM, Bindemann M. A visual processing advantage for young-adolescent deaf observers: evidence from face and object matching tasks. Sci Rep 2017; 7 (01) 1-7 DOI: 10.1038/srep41133.
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Pavani F, Bottari D. Visual abilities in individuals with profound deafness: a critical review.. In: Murray MM, Wallace MT, eds. The Neural Bases of Multisensory Processes. Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis, pp. 421–442 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1201/b11092-28
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Cardin V, Rudner M, De OliveiraRF, Su MT, Beese L, Woll B. et al. The organization of working memory networks is shaped by early sensory experience. Cereb Cortex 2018; 28 (10) 3540-3554
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Merabet LB, Pascual-Leone A. Neural reorganization following sensory loss: the opportunity of change. Nat Rev Neurosci 2010; 11 (01) 44-52 . Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrn2758
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Mitchell TV, Letourneau SM, Maslin MCT. Behavioral and neural evidence of increased attention to the bottom half of the face in deaf signers. Restor Neurol Neurosci 2013; 31 (02) 125-139
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Bettger JG, Emmorey K, McCullough SH, Bellugi U, Mccullough SH. Enhanced facial discrimination: effects of experience with American sign language. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ 1997; 2 (04) 223-233
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Emmorey K, Kosslyn SM, Bellugi U. Visual imagery and visual-spatial language: enhanced imagery abilities in deaf and hearing ASL signers. Cognition 1993; 46 (02) 139-181
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Lee K, Groesbeck E, Gwinn OS, Webster MA, Jiang F. Enhanced peripheral face processing in deaf individuals. J Percept Imaging 2021; 4: 1-7
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Sehyr ZS, Midgley KJ, Holcomb PJ, Emmorey K, Plaut DC, Behrmann M. Unique N170 signatures to words and faces in deaf ASL signers reflect experience-specific adaptations during early visual processing. Neuropsychologia 2020; 141: 107414 DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2020.107414.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Arnold P, Murray C. Memory for faces and objects by deaf and hearing signers and hearing nonsigners. J Psycholinguist Res 1998; 27 (04) 185-195
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Arnold P, Mills M. Memory for faces, shoes, and objects by deaf and hearing signers and hearing nonsigners. J Psycholinguist Res 2001; 30 (02) 185-195
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Keehner M, Atkinson J. Working memory and deafness: implications for cognitive development and functioning.. In: Pickering, S, ed. Working Memory and Education. San Diego: Academic Press; 2006:189–218 doi: DOI: 10.1016/B978-012554465-8/50009-0
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 16 McCullough S, Emmorey K. Face processing by deaf ASL signers: evidence for expertise in distinguished local features. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ 1997; 2 (04) 212-222
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Parasnis I, Samar VJ, Bettger JG, Sathe K. Does deafness lead to enhancement of visual spatial cognition in children? Negative evidence from deaf nonsigners. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ 1996; 1 (02) 145-152
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Stoll C, Palluel-Germain R, Caldara R, Lao J, Dye MWG, Aptel F. et al. Face recognition is shaped by the use of sign language. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ 2018; 23 (01) 62-70
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Benetti S, van Ackeren MJ, Rabini G, Zonca J, Foa V, Baruffaldi F. et al. Functional selectivity for face processing in the temporal voice area of early deaf individuals. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2017; 114 (31) E6437-E6446
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 de Heering A, Aljuhanay A, Rossion B, Pascalis O. Early deafness increases the face inversion effect but does not modulate the composite face effect. Front Psychol 2012; 3: 1-10
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Baddeley A. Working memory: theories, models, and controversies. Annu Rev Psychol 2012; 63: 1-29 . Doi: http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100422
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Ding H, Qin W, Liang M, Ming D, Wan B, Li Q. et al. Cross-modal activation of auditory regions during visuo-spatial working memory in early deafness. Brain 2015; 138 (09) 2750-2765
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Heled E, Ohayon M. Visuospatial and tactile working memory in individuals with congenital deafness. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ 2021; 26 (03) 314-321
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Rac-Lubashevsky R, Kessler Y. Dissociating working memory updating and automatic updating: the reference-back paradigm. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 2016; 42 (06) 951-969
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Kirchner WK. Age differences in short-term retention of rapidly changing information. J Exp Psychol 1958; 55: 352-358
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Jaeggi SM, Buschkuehl M, Perrig WJ, Meier B. The concurrent validity of the N-back task as a working memory measure. Memory 2010; 18 (04) 394-412
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Scheibel RS, Pearson DA, Faria LP, Kotrla KJ, Aylward J, Bachevalier J. et al. An fMRI study of executive functioning after severe diffuse TBI. Brain Inj 2003; 17 (11) 919-930
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Ding H, Ming D, Wan B, Li Q, Qin W, Yu C. Enhanced spontaneous functional connectivity of the superior temporal gyrus in early deafness. Sci Rep 2016; 6: 1-11 DOI: 10.1038/srep23239.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Rudner M. Working memory for linguistic and non-linguistic manual gestures: evidence, theory, and application. Front Psychol 2018; 9: 1-13 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00679.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Malaia E, Wilbur RB. Visual and linguistic components of short-term memory: Generalized Neural Model (GNM) for spoken and sign languages. Cortex 2018; 112: 69-79 . Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2018.05.020
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Marschark M, Morrison C, Lukomski J, Borgna G, Convertino C. Are deaf students visual learners?. Learn Individ Differ 2013; 25: 156-162 . Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.02.006
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Moberly AC, Pisoni DB, Harris MS. Visual working memory span in adults with cochlear implants: some preliminary findings. World J Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2017; 3 (04) 224-230
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Emmorey K, Giezen MR, Petrich JAF, Spurgeon E, O'Grady Farnady L. The relation between working memory and language comprehension in signers and speakers. Acta Psychol 2017; 177: 69-77
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Marschark M, Spencer LJ, Durkin A, Borgna G, Convertino C, Machmer E. et al. Understanding language, hearing status, and visual-spatial skills. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ 2015; 20 (04) 310-330
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Colzato LS, Jongkees BJ, Sellaro R, Hommel B. Working memory reloaded: tyrosine repletes updating in the N-back task. Front Behav Neurosci 2013; 7: 1-5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Gevins A, Ilan AB, Jiang A, Chan CS, Gelinas D, Smith ME. et al. A method to combine cognitive and neurophysiological assessments of the elderly. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 2011; 31 (01) 7-19
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Jacola LM, Willard VW, Ashford JM, Ogg RJ, Scoggins MA, Jones MM. et al. Clinical utility of the N-back task in functional neuroimaging studies of working memory. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 2014; 36 (08) 875-886 . Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2014.953039
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 León-Domínguez U, Martín-Rodríguez JF, León-Carrión J. Executive n-back tasks for the neuropsychological assessment of working memory. Behav Brain Res 2015; 292: 167-173 . Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2015.06.002
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Wang H, He W, Wu J, Zhang J, Jin Z, Li L. A coordinate-based meta-analysis of the n-back working memory paradigm using activation likelihood estimation. Brain Cogn 2019; 132: 1-12
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Yaple Z, Arsalidou M. N-back working memory task: meta-analysis of normative fMRI studies with children. Child Dev 2018; 89 (06) 2010-2022
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Bopp KL, Verhaeghen P. Aging and n-back performance: a meta-analysis. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 2020; 75 (02) 229-240
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Chau SA, Herrmann N, Eizenman M, Chung J, Lanctôt KL. Exploring visual selective attention towards novel stimuli in Alzheimer's disease patients. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord Extra 2015; 5 (03) 492-502
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Snyder HR, Miyake A, Hankin BL. Advancing understanding of executive function impairments and psychopathology: bridging the gap between clinical and cognitive approaches. Front Psychol 2015; 6: 328
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Lundqvist D, Flykt A, O¨hmann A. The Karolinska Directed Emotional Faces (KDEF), CD ROM from Department of Clinical Neuroscience. Stockholm, Sweden: Psychology Section, Karolinska Institute;: 1998
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Morgan CJ. Use of proper statistical techniques for research studies with small samples. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol 2017; 313 (05) L873-L877
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Andin J, Holmer E, Schönström K, Rudner M. Working memory for signs with poor visual resolution: fMRI evidence of reorganization of auditory cortex in deaf signers. Cereb Cortex 2021; 31 (07) 3165-3176
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Costa SL, Genova HM, DeLuca J, Chiaravalloti ND. Information processing speed in multiple sclerosis: past, present, and future. Mult Scler 2017; 23 (06) 772-789
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Rudner M, Orfanidou E, Cardin V, Capek CM, Woll B, Rönnberg J. Preexisting semantic representation improves working memory performance in the visuospatial domain. Mem Cognit 2016; 44: 608-620
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Meule A. Reporting and interpreting working memory performance in n-back tasks. Front Psychol 2017; 8: 352 . Doi: https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00352
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar