The Effect of Task in Deaf Readers' Graphophonological Processes: A Longitudinal Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article reports on an investigation of graphophonological processes in deaf readers of French over a 1-year period. Deaf readers are known to have a phonological deficit compared to hearing peers, and conclusions from studies on this question are often conflicting. Among the different types of phonological processing, we can identify graphophonological processes based on correspondences between the oral and the written language. In this investigation, we evaluated graphophonemic and graphosyllabic processes using, in each case, two different tasks varying in their degree of cognitive constraints (CC- vs. CC+). Nineteen 11 year-old deaf students were compared to younger normal readers of the same reading level (RA, n = 17) and to normal readers of the same age (CA, n = 20). Two variables were considered in the analyses: accuracy and response latency. Results show that deaf readers do process written items at the graphophonological level and that graphophonological processes are related to reading ability. Also, results indicate main effects of task (CC- vs. CC+), time (T1 vs. T2), and group. In general, deaf participants' performances are comparable to those of RA and differ from those of CA. Results are discussed within the framework of the study of phonology in deaf readers and its relation to reading acquisition.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".