Eye-Tracking for Word Learning in Deaf Children

Recruiting in Palo Alto (17 mi)

Overseen by Amy Lieberman, PhD

Age: < 18

Sex: Any

Travel: May Be Covered

Time Reimbursement: Varies

Trial Phase: Academic

Recruiting

Sponsor: Boston University Charles River Campus

Disqualifiers: No ASL exposure

No Placebo Group

Trial Summary

What is the purpose of this trial?

Mutual exclusivity is a word learning constraint in which the learner assumes that a given word refers to only one category of objects. In spoken languages, mutual exclusivity has been demonstrated in monolingual children as young as 17 months and cross-linguistically, while multilingual learners show an attenuated mutual exclusivity bias. Mutual exclusivity has not been robustly demonstrated in deaf children acquiring American Sign Language (ASL). Further, it is unclear if mutual exclusivity applies to those learning both a signed and a spoken language. Like unimodal bilinguals, bimodal bilingual (BiBi) children learn two words for an object, but these words are separated by modality. A BiBi child could therefore assume that all objects have two words (like unimodal bilinguals) or that all objects have one spoken word and one sign (within-modality mutual exclusivity). The goals of the current study are to demonstrate mutual exclusivity in monolingual deaf children acquiring ASL, and to determine if BiBi deaf children utilize mutual exclusivity within each modality.

Do I need to stop my current medications for this trial?

The trial information does not specify whether you need to stop taking your current medications.

What data supports the effectiveness of the treatment input cue for word learning in deaf children?

Research shows that using visual cues, like eye-tracking, can help improve reading skills in deaf children by enhancing their understanding of how letters and sounds relate. This approach has been effective in helping a deaf child transition from a basic reading strategy to reading more like typical readers. ^{1 2 3 4 5}

Is eye-tracking for word learning in deaf children safe?

The research articles provided do not contain specific safety data related to eye-tracking for word learning in deaf children, but eye-tracking is generally considered a non-invasive and safe method for studying visual attention and language processing. ^{4 6 7 8 9}

How does the eye-tracking treatment for word learning in deaf children differ from other treatments?

This treatment is unique because it uses eye-tracking technology to help deaf children learn new words in American Sign Language by optimizing their visual attention between objects and signs, which is different from traditional spoken language learning methods that rely on auditory cues. ^{1 2 6 7 10}

Research Team

Amy Lieberman, PhD

Principal Investigator

Boston University

Eligibility Criteria

This trial is for deaf children aged 18-60 months who were born with severe to profound hearing loss. It's suitable for those who use American Sign Language (ASL) and have normal or corrected-to-normal vision, regardless of whether their parents are deaf or hearing.

Inclusion Criteria

Children who are deaf and have parents who are either deaf or hearing.

My child, aged 18-60 months, was born with severe to profound deafness.

I am a deaf child with normal or corrected-to-normal vision.

Exclusion Criteria

My child is deaf and has not learned American Sign Language.

Trial Timeline

Screening

Participants are screened for eligibility to participate in the trial

2-4 weeks

Experimental Procedure

Participants engage in structured word learning tasks involving object selection based on referential cues and mutual exclusivity

1 session

1 visit (in-person)

Follow-up

Participants are monitored for any additional insights or data collection post-experiment

2 weeks

Treatment Details

Interventions

• input cue (Behavioural Intervention)

Trial Overview The study investigates how deaf children learn words using a principle called mutual exclusivity - the idea that each object has only one name. Researchers will see if this applies to kids learning ASL and those learning both ASL and spoken language through eye-tracking and behavior observation.

Participant Groups

Group I: Referential cues to object Experimental Treatment 1 Intervention

Each object pair that is presented to the child is accompanied by 1) gaze only (3 trials); 2) novel label only (3 trials); or 3) conflicting gaze and novel label (3 trials)

Find a Clinic Near You

Research Locations Nearby Select from list below to view details:

Boston University Boston, MA

Who Is Running the Clinical Trial?

Boston University Charles River Campus

Lead Sponsor

Trials

125

Patients Recruited

14,100+

Findings from Research

A profoundly deaf girl with reading disorders used a 'logographic' strategy, relying on visual features of words, to recognize them, which was identified through eye fixation measurements.

After a specialized training program focused on grapheme-phoneme relations, her reading skills improved significantly, and her eye fixation patterns became similar to those of typical readers, highlighting the effectiveness of targeted interventions for reading impairments.

NCBI (Pubmed)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

From "logographic" to normal reading: the case of a deaf beginning reader. Aghababian, V., Nazir, TA., Lançon, C., et al.[2019]

Children who are deaf exhibited greater visual impairments, such as higher ametropia and reduced near vision capabilities, compared to children who could hear, highlighting the need for comprehensive eye examinations in this population.

Using a yellow color overlay significantly improved reading speed by 18% for children who are deaf, while it had no effect on reading speed for children who could hear, suggesting that color overlays may be a beneficial tool for enhancing reading performance in deaf children.

NCBI (Pubmed)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Visual performance and the use of colored filters in children who are deaf. Hollingsworth, RS., Ludlow, AK., Wilkins, AJ., et al.[2018]

Children with hearing loss (HL) showed a developmental delay in phonological processing, relying more on visual speech cues when younger, while older children with HL benefited more from auditory speech without additional help from visual cues.

In naming tasks, conflicting auditory and visual speech distractors slowed down responses for children with HL, indicating that their speech processing is initially more influenced by visual information but becomes more refined with age.

NCBI (Pubmed)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Role of visual speech in phonological processing by children with hearing loss. Jerger, S., Tye-Murray, N., Abdi, H.[2021]

References

1. Netherlands pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

From "logographic" to normal reading: the case of a deaf beginning reader. [2019]

2. United States pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Word learning processes in children with cochlear implants. [2021]

3. United States pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Visual performance and the use of colored filters in children who are deaf. [2018]

4. United States pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Role of visual speech in phonological processing by children with hearing loss. [2021]

5. United States pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Reading and reading-related skills in children using cochlear implants: prospects for the influence of cued speech. [2013]

6. England pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Lexical Recognition in Deaf Children Learning American Sign Language: Activation of Semantic and Phonological Features of Signs. [2021]

7. England pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Flexible fast-mapping: Deaf children dynamically allocate visual attention to learn novel words in American Sign Language. [2023]

8. England pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Real-time lexical comprehension in young children learning American Sign Language. [2019]

9. United States pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Examining speech-based phonological recoding during reading for adolescent deaf signers. [2023]

10. United States pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Phonology acquired through the eyes and spelling in deaf children. [2006]