Executive function in deaf native signing children: the relationship of language experience and cognition Justyna Kotowicz 1, Bencie Woll 2, Rosalind Herman 4, Magda Schromová 5, Maria Kiela-Turska 5, Joanna Łacheta 6 1Department of Special Education, Pedagogical University, Cracow, 2 Deafness Cognition and Language Research Centre, University College London, 3Department of Language and Communication Science, City University London, 4Section for Sign Linguistics, University of Warsaw, 5Department of Psychology, Jagiellonian University justyna.kotowicz@gmail.com INTRODUCTION PARTICIPANTS Deaf children Native signers DD Hearing children HH Number N=20 L1 PJM (Polsih Sign Language) Polish (spoken) Cochlear implant --- Parents Deaf Hearing Age M= 9;11 SD=2;00 min=6;1 max=12;11 M= 10,00 SD=1;11 min= 6;6 max=12;7 Children mached on age Gender 4♂, 16♀ Children mached on gender Education level Children mached on educational level Intelligence No significant difference (Raven’s progressive matrices) t(38)=-1,523, n.s. Deaf children experience difficulties in executive function (EF) (Figueras, Edwards, Langdon, 2008; Hintermair, 2013). Deficits in EF seem to be connected to language delays rather than to hearing loss per se. Deaf native signing children with no language deprivation obtain similar scores to their hearing peers when EF is determined by parent report questionnaire (Hall et al., 2016). RESEARCH GOAL To assess the EF level (based on experimental tasks) of deaf native signing children in comparison to hearing children’s performance METHODS Non-verbal ef assessment tools (computer version): Cognitive flexibility – Wisconsin Card Sorting Task Task: Match the card from the top to one of four different cards on the bottom in accordance with a changing rule that should be discovered 2. Inhibitory control (interference suppression) – Simon task Task: Tap the left SHIFT key when the blue butterfly is on the screen and tap the right SHIFT key when the red butterfly appears 3. Inhibitory control (response inhibition) – Go/no go task Task: Tap the SPACE key when the boat appears on the screen and do not react when the fountain Appears 4. Working memory (visual-spatial) – Corsi Block Task: Repeat a sequence of lit up blocks in reverse order 5. Planning - Tower of London Task: Put the beads on the pegs on your board according to the model board on the top of the screen (with a limited number of movements and one bead at a time) RESULTS Cognitive flexibility – Wisconsin Card Sorting Task The intergroup differences were not significant Mann-Whitney U=157, n.s. 2. Inhibitory control (interference suppression) – Simon task The intergroup differences were not significant one-way repeated-measures ANOVA, F(1,38)=0.44, n.s. 3. Inhibitory control (response inhibition) – Go/no go task The intergroup differences were significant (t(30)=2.72, p= .001) The intergroup differences were not significant between the hearing and deaf older groups (age ≥ 10;00) t(19)=0.42, n.s. between the two younger groups (age < 10;00) t(15)=4.71, p= .001 4. Working memory (visual-spatial) – Corsi Block The intergroup differences were not significant Mann-Whitney U=132, n.s. p= .438 5. Planning - Tower of London The intergroup differences were not significant t(38)=0.78, n.s. (p= .438) DISCUSSION These results show that deaf signing children with early language exposure to sign language perform similarly to hearing peers on experimental EF tasks. Early immersion in natural sign language is likely to support higher cognitive functioning in deaf children. Those findings are in accord with a large scale study of deaf children (Botting et al. 2015) showing that language skills play a crucial role for EF performance. Deaf children who have acquired sign language as a first language do not suffer from deficient EF like deaf children with language delays (Kronenberger et al., 2014). Weaker inhibition response was observed just in the younger group, who may still be learning how to suppress reaction. Similarly, Dye and Hauser (2014) found that younger deaf children can still struggle with deficient cognitive control in continuous performance test (Dye, Hauser, 2014).   References:1. Botting, N., Jones, A., Marshall, C., Denmark, T., Atkinson, J. & Morgan, G. (2016). Non-verbal executive function is mediated by language: A study of deaf and hearing children. Child Development, 1-12. 2. Dye, M.W., & Hauser, P., (2014). Sustained attention, selective attention and cognitive control in deaf and hearing children. Hearing research, 309, 94-102. 3. Figueras, B., Edwards, L., & Langdon, D., (2008). Executive function and language in deaf children. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 13, 362-377. 4. Hall, M., Eigsti, I.-M., Bortfeld, H., & Lillo-Martin, D. (2016). Auditory Deprivation Does Not Impair Executive Function, But Language Deprivation Might: Evidence From a Parent-Report Measure in Deaf Native Signing Children. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 22(1), 1–13. 5. Hintermair, M. (2013). Executive functions and behavioral problems in deaf and hard-of-hearing students at general and special schools. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 18 (3), 344-59. 6. Kronenberger, W.G., Pisoni, D.B., Henning, S.C., & Colson, B.G., (2013). Executive functioning skills in long-term users of cochlear implants: A case control study. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 38, 902-914.