Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Sign Language”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 1,333 records · Page 74Linked to original sources
PubMed1981

Effects of motoric requirements on the acquisition of manual sign responses by severely handicapped students.

Eight severely handicapped school-aged students were given training on communicative signs that varied according to iconic or abstract, touch or nontouch, and symmetrical or asymmetrical sign dimensions to determine the effects of motoric requirements on sign acquisition. A 2 X 2 Latin square design repeated between and within students was used. Symmetrical signs were acquired significantly faster than were asymmetrical signs, and touch signs were acquired significantly faster than were nontouch signs. Results of the acquisition of iconic vs. abstract signs were inconclusive.

Adolescent↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Freedom for the handicapped.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Education of Persons with Intellectual Disabilitie↗
PubMed1983

Translucency of sign and concreteness of gloss in the manual sign learning of moderately/severely mentally retarded students.

The effects of high and low levels of manual sign translucency and referential concreteness on the manual sign learning of moderately/severely mentally retarded adolescents were investigated. High levels of translucency were shown to be a significant facilitator of sign learning and low levels of the variable inhibited learning. Concreteness did not significantly affect sign learning. Implications for the effects of the two variables on the sign learning of retarded students were discussed.

Achievement↗
PubMed1984

Interaction between deaf preschoolers and unfamiliar hearing adults.

The purpose of this study was to broaden our knowledge of the deaf child's social environment by providing a detailed description of the interactions between deaf children and women who were without experience or training with deaf people. 15 mothers interacted in a play situation with an unfamiliar deaf 5-year-old, an unfamiliar hearing 2-year-old, and an unfamiliar hearing 4 1/2-year-old. The women adapted their communication to the needs of the deaf children in several ways. The women used more visual communicative devices, touches, and simpler speech when communicating to the deaf children than when communicating to the hearing children. Despite these modifications, the women's initiations to the deaf children were only successful 46% of the time. In contrast, the women's initiations to the hearing children were successful more than 69% of the time. The women compensated for their low rate of success with the deaf children by initiating interactions more often to the deaf children than to the hearing children. As a result, the women and deaf children interacted as frequently as the women and hearing children. However, because the women and deaf children had considerable trouble maintaining their interactions for any length of time, they spent half as much time interacting as did the women and hearing children. Some reasons for this interactional pattern are presented. In addition, the implications of the results for the nature of " Motherese " are discussed.

Adult↗
PubMed1984

Early intervention using simultaneous communication with deaf infants: the effect on communication development.

This report presents findings on an independent evaluation of an early intervention program for severely and profoundly deaf children. Located in Vancouver, British Columbia, this comprehensive program served families with children under age 3. The evaluation included comparison with a matched sample of deaf children without intervention. Included were a developmental assessment and videotape of linguistic and social interactions. Results indicated more developmentally mature communication and higher-quality interaction in families who had received intervention.

Child Development↗