McFayden Tyler C, Gonzalez Aguiar Maria K, MacKenzie Charlotte C, McIntosh Anne, Multhaup Kristi S
Carolina Institute for Developmental Disabilities, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, 101 Renee Lynne Court, Carrboro, NC, 27510, USA.
Davidson College, Department of Psychology, Davidson, NC, USA.
Psychon Bull Rev. 2023 Oct;30(5):1722-1739. doi: 10.3758/s13423-023-02282-6. Epub 2023 Apr 3.
Previous research suggests Deaf signers may have different short-term and working memory processes compared with hearing nonsigners due to prolonged auditory deprivation. The direction and magnitude of these reported differences, however, are variable and dependent on memory modality (e.g., visual, verbal), stimulus type, and research design. These discrepancies have made consensus difficult to reach which, in turn, slows progress in areas such as education, medical decision-making, and cognitive sciences. The present systematic review and meta-analysis included 35 studies (N = 1,701 participants) that examined verbal (n = 15), visuospatial (n = 10), or both verbal and visuospatial (n = 10) serial-memory tasks comparing nonimplanted, Deaf signers to hearing nonsigners across the life span. Multivariate meta-analyses indicated a significant, negative effect of deafness on verbal short-term memory (forward recall), g = -1.33, SE = 0.17, p < .001, 95% CI [-1.68, -0.98], and working memory (backward recall), g = -0.66, SE = 0.11, p < .001, 95% CI [-0.89, -0.45], but no significant effect of deafness on visuospatial short-term memory, g = -0.055, SE = 0.17, p = 0.75, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.28]. Visuospatial working memory was not analyzed due to limited power. Population estimates for verbal and visuospatial short-term memory were moderated by age wherein studies with adults demonstrated a stronger hearing advantage than studies with children/adolescents. Quality estimates indicated most studies were of fair quality, with only 38% of studies involving Deaf authors. Findings are discussed in the context of both Deaf equity and models of serial memory.
先前的研究表明，由于长期听觉剥夺，与听力正常的非手语使用者相比，失聪的手语使用者可能具有不同的短期和工作记忆过程。然而，这些已报道差异的方向和程度是可变的，并且取决于记忆方式（例如，视觉、言语）、刺激类型和研究设计。这些差异使得难以达成共识，进而减缓了教育、医疗决策和认知科学等领域的进展。本系统综述和荟萃分析纳入了35项研究（N = 1701名参与者），这些研究考察了言语（n = 15）、视觉空间（n = 10）或言语和视觉空间（n = 10）序列记忆任务，比较了非植入式失聪手语使用者与各年龄段听力正常的非手语使用者。多变量荟萃分析表明，失聪对言语短期记忆（正向回忆）有显著的负面影响，g = -1.33，SE = 0.17，p <.001，95% CI [-1.68, -0.98]，对工作记忆（反向回忆）也有显著负面影响，g = -0.66，SE = 0.11，p <.001，95% CI [-0.89, -0.45]，但失聪对视觉空间短期记忆没有显著影响，g = -0.055，SE = 0.17，p = 0.75，95% CI [-0.39, 0.28]。由于功效有限，未对视觉空间工作记忆进行分析。言语和视觉空间短期记忆的总体估计受年龄调节，其中针对成年人的研究显示出比针对儿童/青少年的研究更强的听力优势。质量评估表明，大多数研究质量一般，只有38%的研究有失聪作者参与。研究结果将在失聪公平性和序列记忆模型的背景下进行讨论。
