Skip to Main Content
 

Global Search Box

 
 
 

ETD Abstract Container

Abstract Header

Visual Social Attention and Pragmatics in Children who are Deaf/Hard of Hearing

Lind-Combs, Holly Conner
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0395-0111
http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1712751223962795

Abstract Details

2024, Doctor of Philosophy, Ohio State University, Speech and Hearing Science.
Purpose: Children who are deaf/hard of hearing (DHH) and who use spoken language often show differences in pragmatic language abilities—or, the social use of language. However, these differences are not always revealed by standardized language assessments. Of those studies demonstrating differences in pragmatic language between DHH and typically hearing (TH), age-matched peers, few studies have investigated specific pragmatic strengths and weaknesses of DHH children. Further, the mechanisms that account for pragmatic language difference are not clear. The two-fold purpose of this study was to: 1) investigate pragmatic strengths and weaknesses in DHH adolescents; and 2) examine visual social attention as a potential mechanism accounting for pragmatic language differences in DHH adolescents compared to their TH age-matched peers. Method: Twenty TH and seven DHH adolescents (ages 10-13) participated in this study. Pragmatic language was assessed using a multi-method approach, including norm-referenced behavioral assessment (Test of Pragmatic Language, Second Edition), parent questionnaire (Children’s Communication Checklist, Second Edition), and examiner observation (Pragmatics Protocol). Visual social attention was quantified as proportional looking time toward the face in two contexts: live conversation and recorded movie scenes. Attention during live conversation was measured from video recordings of semi-structured conversations, while attention to the face during movie scenes was measured using the Tobii Spectrum Pro Eye Tracker. Results: There were significant differences in pragmatic language scores between the TH and DHH groups across all three assessments. The DHH participants demonstrated strengths in pragmatic domains that relied on use of visual cues and weaknesses in areas that involved more advanced perspective-taking (i.e., taking another’s point-of-view, recognizing communication breakdowns, etc.). Group differences were revealed in patterns of visual social attention, with DHH participants looking more at the mouth of a speaker in the recorded context than TH peers, who looked more at the speakers’ eyes. Further, while listening, DHH participants looked significantly more at the face of a speaker in live conversation than their TH peers. Patterns of visual social attention in the live context, but not the recorded context, predicted pragmatic language abilities for the DHH group only. More specifically, DHH adolescents who demonstrated more attention toward the face of a speaker in live conversation tended to show stronger high-level pragmatic skills. Conclusions: Pragmatic language abilities are often overlooked when considering eligibility for speech-language services in DHH children. Even DHH children who score within one standard deviation of the mean on standardized language assessments can have delays and differences in their pragmatic abilities that can impact their quality of life. These preliminary data suggest that while DHH adolescents show delays in pragmatics on average relative to age-matched, TH peers, they also show relative pragmatic strengths and weaknesses. Intervention should target individual areas of difficulty while capitalizing on strengths in each adolescent. Moreover, increased visual social attention in live contexts corresponds with stronger pragmatic language abilities. Increased visual attention to the face is likely used as a compensatory strategy for not only accessing linguistic information (i.e., speechreading), but also for gaining information relevant to pragmatic intent (e.g., facial expressions conveying emotion, sarcasm, questions vs. statements, etc.). Results from this study suggest that, with more data, there is likely value in rethinking the current de-emphasis of visual cues in popular auditory-only therapeutic approaches (such as Auditory-Verbal Therapy) to language intervention for DHH children, as visual attention to the face has important ramifications for pragmatic language development.
Rachael Holt (Advisor)
Allison Bean (Committee Member)
Janet Vuolo (Committee Member)
Laura Wagner (Committee Member)
207 p.
Audiology; Language; Speech Therapy
Pragmatics; Deaf or Hard of Hearing; visual social attention; hearing loss; DHH; children

Recommended Citations

Citations

  • Lind-Combs, H. C. (2024). Visual Social Attention and Pragmatics in Children who are Deaf/Hard of Hearing [Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University]. OhioLINK Electronic Theses and Dissertations Center. http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1712751223962795

    APA Style (7th edition)

  • Lind-Combs, Holly. Visual Social Attention and Pragmatics in Children who are Deaf/Hard of Hearing. 2024. Ohio State University, Doctoral dissertation. OhioLINK Electronic Theses and Dissertations Center, http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1712751223962795.

    MLA Style (8th edition)

  • Lind-Combs, Holly. "Visual Social Attention and Pragmatics in Children who are Deaf/Hard of Hearing." Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, 2024. http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1712751223962795

    Chicago Manual of Style (17th edition)

osu1712751223962795
2
© 2024, all rights reserved.
This open access ETD is published by The Ohio State University and OhioLINK.
Release 3.2.12