Much research has found disrupted executive functioning (EF) in deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) children; while some theories emphasize the role of auditory deprivation, others posit delayed language experience as the primary cause. This study investigated the role of language and auditory experience in parent-reported EF for 123 preschool-aged children (M_age = 60.1 months, 53.7% female, 84.6% White). Comparisons between DHH and typically hearing children exposed to language from birth (spoken or signed) showed no significant differences in EF despite drastic differences in auditory input. Linear models demonstrated that earlier language exposure predicted better EF (β = .061–.341), while earlier auditory exposure did not. Few participants exhibited clinically significant executive dysfunction. Results support theories positing that language, not auditory experience, scaffolds EF development.

The ability to associate different types of number representations referring to the same quantity (symbolic Arabic numerals, signed/spoken number words, and nonsymbolic quantities), is an important predictor of overall mathematical success. This foundational skill—mapping—has not been examined in deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) children. To address this gap, we studied 188 4 1/2 to 9-year-old DHH and hearing children and systematically examined the relationship between their language experiences and mapping skills. We asked whether the timing of children’s language exposure (early vs. later), the modality of their language (signed vs. spoken), and their rote counting abilities related to mapping performance. We found that language modality did not significantly relate to mapping performance, but timing of language exposure and counting skills did. These findings suggest that early access to language, whether spoken or signed, supports the development of age-typical mapping skills and that knowledge of number words is critical for this development.

Background: Despite technological advances and earlier and more confident diagnoses, there is a lack of post-diagnosis support for couples navigating the challenges of early dementia. Clinically elevated emotional distress is common for both partners after diagnosis, and interferes with the health, relationships, and adjustment of both partners if not addressed. Objective: Our objective was to gather in-depth information on couples’ preferences to inform the development of a proposed dyadic intervention addressing emotional distress early (within 6 months) after one partners’ receipt of a dementia diagnosis. Methods: We recruited couples after a recent dementia diagnosis (N = 16 dyads; 32 participants) from a large academic medical center via direct provider referrals for 60-min virtual dyadic interviews. Data were analyzed using a hybrid inductive-deductive approach to thematic analysis. Results: We identified themes within 3 a-priori determined domains. For dyadic intervention format (domain 1), couples preferred to participate in sessions together and to have flexible options for telehealth and in-person participation. Preferences for intervention content (domain 2) included information on dementia, skills to reduce distress and promote resiliency, and support to communicate about the diagnosis and related stress. Barriers and facilitators (domain 3) included denial or hesitation, resource constraints, and interests in learning skills and connecting to others. Conclusions: We gathered comprehensive information that could be used to adapt existing dyadic interventions and to tailor support to match couples’ preferences early after dementia diagnoses. Early interventions should prioritize flexible delivery of information and skills to couples to support adaptive coping following dementia diagnoses.

While mathematics anxiety (MA) has been widely researched in recent decades, this study addresses significant gaps: namely, research that explores the relationship between MA and self‐reported mathematics experiences; samples adults with a range of MA levels; and controls for general anxiety. Additionally, the study sampled deaf and hard of hearing (DHH) students, whose diverse life and educational experiences often differ from hearing students’. We investigated whether DHH students’ experiences with mathematics (i.e., parental behaviors, school environment, and mathematics feelings) and demographic variables (i.e., hearing status, age, and gender) predict their MA, and whether these relationships differ from those in hearing students. Self‐report questionnaires were completed by 296 DHH and hearing college students. Linear regression analyses controlling for general anxiety led to the following inference: DHH students who reported more positive attitudes toward mathematics and school environments demonstrated higher MA. Also, the relationships between mathematics feelings, parental behaviors, and MA differed between DHH and hearing students. Logistic regression analyses showed no contribution of MA to students’ likelihood of pursuing STEM degrees in either DHH or between DHH and hearing groups. Overall, this work breaks new ground in the study of MA in DHH students and challenges standard views of the relationships between MA and individual experiences.

This paper offers an overview of a large study of language and cognitive development in deaf and hard of hearing children. Specifically, we investigated how acquiring a signed or spoken language (language modality) and when a child’s access to language begins (i.e., at birth or later in development) influence cognitive development. We conducted in-person behavioral assessments with 404 children 3–10 years old (280 deaf and hard of hearing; 124 typically hearing). The tasks measured a range of abilities along a continuum of how strongly they depend on language input, such as general vocabulary and number words (strongly dependent) vs. skills such as tracking sets of two to three objects and standardized ‘nonverbal’ picture-similarity tasks (relatively independent of language). Overall, the timing of children’s access to language predicted more variability in their performance than language modality. These findings help refine our theories about how language influences development and suggest how a STEAM pedagogical approach may ameliorate the impacts of later access to language. These results underscore children’s need for language early in development. That is, deaf and hard of hearing children must receive fully accessible language input as early as possible through sign language, accompanied by hearing technology aimed at improving access to spoken language, if desired.

Background: Alzheimer disease and related dementias (ADRDs) are increasingly common progressive conditions that have a substantial impact on individuals and their primary care partners—together described as a dyad. The stressors experienced by dyad members at around the time of ADRD diagnosis commonly produce clinically elevated emotional distress (ie, depression and anxiety symptoms), which can become chronic and negatively impact health, relationships, and the overall quality of life. Dyads commonly report unmet needs for early support to address these challenges early after diagnosis. Objective: This study is part of a larger study that has the primary objective to develop, adapt, and establish the feasibility of Resilient Together for Dementia (RT-ADRD), a novel dyadic skills-based intervention aimed at preventing chronic emotional distress early after diagnosis. The present study protocol describes an open pilot of the RT-ADRD intervention. This study will allow the study team to gather feedback on intervention components, administration of study measures, issues within general protocol, and perceptions about live video interventions prior to a larger feasibility trial. Methods: All study procedures will be conducted on the web (via phone and health care system–supported videoconferencing) to optimize accessibility, inclusion, and representativeness. Eligible dyads will include couples (up to N=10) referred from Mount Sinai Hospital (MSH) clinics within 3 months of an ADRD diagnosis. Dyads will be referred by their diagnosing clinicians (eg, neurologists, geriatricians, and neuropsychologists) and screened for eligibility. Eligible dyads will have at least one member who exhibits clinically elevated emotional distress and will demonstrate capacity to consent to research participation on a standardized assessment. Consenting dyads will complete baseline assessments of emotional distress, quality of life, relationship functioning, and resiliency skills. Dyads will then participate in 6 weekly RT-ADRD sessions together (30-60 minutes each). After the conclusion of the intervention, dyad members will complete posttest assessments with similar measures as the pretest. Finally, dyads will participate together in a single 60-minute exit interview to gather information on intervention content and procedures to refine the intervention before a pilot feasibility trial. Results: This study has been approved by the MSH institutional review board and is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT06421545). We anticipate that the study will be completed by late 2024. Conclusions: We will use these results to administer changes and develop procedures for a pilot feasibility trial of RT-ADRD relative to a minimally enhanced control condition. Our study will allow us to gather comprehensive information on proposed RT-ADRD procedures and content and the best ways of delivering prevention-focused interventions to reduce the potential for chronic emotional distress stemming from ADRDs. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/60382