Comparison of visual working memory in deaf and hearingimpaired students with normal counterparts: A research in people without sign language

  • Farideh Tangestani Zadeh Mail Department of Psychology, Faculty of Education and Psychology, Azarbaijan Shahid Madani University, Tabriz, Iran
  • Ezzatollah Ahmadi Department of Psychology, Faculty of Education and Psychology, Azarbaijan Shahid Madani University, Tabriz, Iran
Visual working memory, deaf students, hearing-impaired students


Background and Aim: The hearing defects in deaf and hearing-impaired students also affect their cognitive skills such as memory in addition to communication skills. Hence, the aim of this study was to compare visual working memory in deaf and hearing-impaired students with that in normal counterparts.
Method: In the present study, which was a causal-comparative study using the André Rey test, 30 deaf and 30 hearing-impaired students were compared with 30 students in a normal group, and they were matched based on gender, intelligence, educational grade, and socioeconomic status.
Findings: Findings show that there is significant difference between the three groups’ subjects
(p<0.05). The average of the normal group was more than that of the other two groups. However, the difference between the two auditory impaired groups was not significant (p>0.05).
Conclusion: Function of deaf or hard-of-hearing students in the visual working memory task was weaker in comparison with the normal counterparts, while the two deaf and hard-of-hearing groups have similar functions. With a better identification and understanding of the factors that affect the development of this cognitive ability, we can offer new methods of teaching and reduce many of the disadvantages of this group of people in the different fields of cognitive science.


1. Quittner AL, Leibach P, Marciel K. The impact of cochlear implants on young deaf children: new methods to assess cognitive and behavioral development. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2004;130(5):547-54.
2. Peterson CC, Siegal M. Insights into theory of mind from deafness and autism. Mind & Language. 2000;15(1):123-45.
3. Bavelier B, Dye MW, Hauser PC. Do deaf individuals see better? Trends Cogn Sci. 2006;10(11):512-8.
4. Chen Q, Zhang M, Zhou X. Effects of spatial distribution of attention during inhibition of return (IOR) on flanker interference in hearing and congenitally deaf people. Brain Res. 2006;1109(1):117-27.
5. Nava E, Bottari D, Zampini M, Pavani F. Visual temporal order judgment in profoundly deaf individuals. Exp Brain Res. 2008;190(2):179-88.
6. Logan GD. The CODE theory of visual attention: An integration of space-based and object-based attention. Psychol Rev. 1996;103(4):603-49.
7. Wilson M, Bettger J, Niculae L, Klima E. Modality of language shapes working memory: evidence from digit span and spatial span in ASL signers. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 1997;2(3):150-60.
8. Hamilton H. Memory skills of deaf learners: implications and applications. Am Ann Deaf. 2011;156(4):402-23.
9. Tomlinson-Keasey C, Smith-Winberry C. Cognitive consequences of congenital deafness. J Genet Psychol. 1990;151(1):103-15.
10. Hauser P, Dye MW, Cohen J, Bavelier D. Visual constructive and visual-motor skills in deaf native signers. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 2007;12(2):148-57.
11. Parasnis I, Samar V, Bettger J, Sathe K. Does deafness lead to enhancementof visual-spatial cognition in children? Negative evidence from deaf non signers. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 1996;1(2):145-52.
12. Harris M, Moreno C. Deaf children’s use of phonological coding: evidence from reading, spelling and working memory. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 2004;9(3):253-68.
13. Campbell R, Wright H. Deafness and immediate memory for pictures: dissociations between "inner speech" and the "inner ear"? J Exp Child Psychol. 1990;50(2):259-86.
14. López-Crespo G, Daza MT, Méndez-López M. Visual working memory in deaf children with diverse communication modes: Improvement by differential outcomes. Res Dev Disabil. 2012;33(2):362-8.
15. Rahmani J. The reliability and validity of raven's progressive matrics test among the students of Azad Khorasgan University. Knowl Res Appl Psychol. 2008;9(34):61-74. Persian.
16. Nazaribadie M, Asgari K, Amini M, Abedi A. An investigation of the cognitive performances in patients with type 2 Diabetes in comparison to pre-diabetic patients. Advances in Cognitive Science. 2011;13(3):33-40. Persian.
17. Keehner M, Atkinson J. Working memory and deafness: Implications for cognitive development and functioning. In: Pickering SJ, editor. Working memory and education. San Diego: Academic Press; 2006. p. 189-218.
18. Sandler W, Lillo-Martin D. Sign language and linguistic universals. 1st ed. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge; 2006.
How to Cite
Tangestani Zadeh F, Ahmadi E. Comparison of visual working memory in deaf and hearingimpaired students with normal counterparts: A research in people without sign language. Aud Vestib Res. 23(6):92-98.
Research Article(s)