Search Abstracts | Symposia | Slide Sessions | Poster Sessions
Assessing syntactic processing during natural reading in hearing and deaf adults: An EEG/eye-tracking co-registration study
Poster Session C, Saturday, September 13, 11:00 am - 12:30 pm, Field House
Emily M. Akers1,2, Katherine J. Midgley2, Phillip J. Holcomb2, Karen Emmorey2; 1University of California, San Diego, 2San Diego State University
Most EEG studies examining neural processes involved in reading utilize unnatural paradigms where readers are not allowed to move their eyes. Both Rapid Serial Visual Presentation (RSVP) and “RSVP with flankers” (three words presented simultaneously) paradigms require participants to fixate on a centrally presented word. We used an EEG/eye-tracking co-registration design, which allowed participants to read naturally. Fixation-related potentials (FRPs) were analyzed, time-locked to eye fixations on a target word. We examined the sensitivity of deaf and hearing readers to English verb agreement violations (e.g., The small sailboat leisurely drift into the calm ocean) and word order violations (e.g., Hot tea can warm your hands a on chilly day). Our previous ERP studies revealed that deaf and hearing readers were equally sensitive to word order violations, exhibiting a P600 at the violation (RSVP paradigm; Emmorey et al., 2025), and both foveally and parafoveally using the RSVP with flankers paradigm (Akers et al., 2024). In contrast, both studies revealed that deaf readers lacked a P600 to agreement violations (either foveally or parafoveally) compared to reading-matched hearing readers. However, deaf readers showed a word final N400 “wrap-up” effect, indicating neural sensitivity to the error during sentence final integration processes (Emmorey et al., 2025). To date, we have tested 23 deaf signers and 15 hearing English speakers matched on age and reading abilities. In contrast to previous studies, neither group exhibited a P600 when fixating on the first word in word order violations, but the deaf readers showed a P600 when fixating on the second word in the violation (e.g., “on” in “a on chilly day”). Neither group showed evidence of wrap-up effects on the final word for sentences containing a word order violation. Consistent with previous work, only hearing readers were sensitive to agreement violations, exhibiting a P600 when fixating on the verb violation. Hearing readers also exhibited late negativity when the violation was in the parafovea. In contrast to the word order violations, both deaf and hearing readers showed sentence final N400 wrap-up effects in sentences that contained an agreement violation. For agreement violations, our results parallel previous EEG studies: deaf readers are not immediately sensitive to agreement violations at the site of the violation, but they do show sensitivity to these violations when re-evaluating the sentence after reading. For word order violations, surprisingly, neither group exhibited a P600 at the violation, whereas previous studies revealed robust P600 effects for both groups. We attribute this difference to the ability of readers to “autocorrect” the order of the short function words during natural reading, parallel to transposed word effects. In sum, the results indicate that deaf and hearing readers have different sensitivities to English grammar during natural reading, which has not previously been investigated. Emmorey et al. (2025). Assessing sensitivity to semantic and syntactic information in deaf readers: An ERP study. Neuropsychologia. Under review. Akers et al. (2024). An “RSVP with flankers” ERP study of foveal and parafoveal processing deaf and hearing readers: Effects of semantic and syntactic violations. Psychonomic Society Meeting.
Topic Areas: Reading,