To cite this article: Gómez-Merino, N., Fajardo, I., Ferrer, A., & Arfé, B. (2020). Time-Course of Grammatical Processing in Deaf Readers: An Eye-Movement Study. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 25(3), 351–364. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enaa005

How we look at grammar while reading: eye-movement clues in deaf students

Study context

Grammar (agreement, verb tense, prepositions) guides sentence integration. In prelingually deaf students, comprehension is often weaker and syntax skills lower, but it was unclear when and how grammatical cues are used during reading. We captured that timing with eye-tracking.

What we investigated

We asked whether (1) deaf children/adolescents are as accurate as hearing peers at detecting grammatical errors, and (2) whether the time-course of processing incongruence is similar across groups or follows different routes.

How we did it

We recorded eye movements from two groups (20 prelingually deaf, orally educated; 20 hearing; mean age ~12). They read Spanish sentences and judged them as “correct/incorrect.” Half contained a grammatical mismatch (e.g., la padre). We analysed pre-target (PRE), target (TAR), and post-target (POST) regions, and related reading to vocabulary, reading speed, and syntactic ability.

What we found

Accuracy: hearing students outperformed deaf students.
At the target word (TAR): both groups slowed down when grammar mismatched—so detection occurred at the problematic word. Hearing readers made fewer, longer fixations; deaf readers more, shorter ones.
Afterwards (POST): a late, inverted pattern emerged (longer first-pass for correct items), likely reflecting continued confirmation.
Syntax matters: syntactic ability consistently predicted more efficient processing; vocabulary and speed had smaller, less systematic roles.
Overall, results support a cascading effect: weaker syntax propagates to later reading stages.

Why it matters

Educational psychology: go beyond right/wrong; time-based measures (or timed tasks) help pinpoint where processing breaks down.
Education: explicitly train grammatical markers (articles, prepositions, agreement) in sentence-level reading with immediate feedback and correct/incorrect contrasts.
Speech-language therapy: targeting morphosyntax and function words can lift overall reading via the cascading effect.

Future directions

Future work should isolate error types, add a reading-age control, and replicate across languages.