# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Misconception #7: Deaf people can't speak English clearly. If they can, they are faking being Deaf.

Deafness impacts each person very differently. Just like other disabilities and experiences, deafness is a spectrum. Many factors influence someone's experience of being deaf, such as:

Some individuals are deaf from birth, while others acquire it later in life.

Additionally, some individuals may be partially deaf and use hearing aids or cochlear implants.

Some Deaf folks undergo auditory training at a young age to speak English.

If a Deaf person speaks English, how they speak and sound can vary greatly depending on their individual experience. In the age of TikTok, Deaf and hard-of-hearing creators are using the platform to share their daily lives and experiences with hearing loss. However, some individuals with clear and unaffected speech may face biased assumptions about their Deaf identity from people unaware of the spectrum of deafness. This is common in the comments section of Deaf creators' videos and often leads to arguments where they have to defend themselves against accusations of faking their deafness. Let's learn and appreciate these creators' perspectives instead of making people prove their identities and experiences.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
do all deaf people want cochlear implants

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Debunking 7 Misconceptions about Sign Language, Deaf Culture, and Deafness

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In honor of International Week of Deaf People, we debunk common misconceptions about Sign Language, Deaf Culture, and deafness.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
SETTING THE STANDARD FOR BOLD AND INCLUSIVE ENTERTAINMENT

Committed to innovation, collaboration, training, and activism, Deaf West is the artistic bridge between the Deaf and hearing worlds. Founded in Los Angeles in 1991, Deaf West engages artists and audiences in unparalleled theater and media experiences inspired by Deaf culture and the expressive power of sign language, weaving ASL with spoken English to create a seamless ballet of movement and voice.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Committed to innovation, collaboration, training, and activism, Deaf West is the artistic bridge between the Deaf and hearing worlds.

# data[].attributes.body
Access to language and culture is the biggest issue.

Deaf people are not involved or invited to be a part of making decisions

No political power.

Brian is a professor here at UGA and on many committees such as NAD, GCDHOH, DBAS, DAQL, GMP...

Hospital, emergency room, class lawsuit because there was no interpreter (2018?)

VRI not sufficient!

Friends in Atlanta have the same problems

GSD dorms door

ASD no dorms in only two Deaf schools in Georgia

Bad interpreters

No political power in churches and religious environments.

Poor experiences of needing to be "fixed" or "cured" in religious settings.

Bad experience with Jehova witness

"People don't see me as spiritual person first, the see me as deaf and that's all they think I can be."

DEI committee

Two hearing parents who barely know ASL.

Mainstream elementary, middle, and high school

Learned at Gallaudet University in college - Biology major

Knows of many impactful Deaf artists:

Favorite:

AMY COHEN EFRON

# data[].attributes.body
Are you a part of any groups/ organizations related to Deaf culture?

Have you or anyone you know has poor experiences in Athens school systems at any grade level? In higher education?

Have you or anyone you know had bad experiences in religious environments? What happened?

What are common misconceptions about being Deaf or hard of hearing?

What does injustice mean to you?

Would you say there is lack of representation for Deaf Artists?

Discrimination in the legal system? Stories about being falsely arrested?

Is there anything else you want me to know about diversity / injustice in Athens / the state of Georgia?

I believe there are two Deaf schools in the state of Georgia, thoughts on this? Do you know anyone who attends? Is it a 6 hour commute for them? Any dorms there? What could the future look like to change this?

# data[].attributes.body
Cochlear implant user when 2 and half years old. First deaf person in family.

Raised same as hearing person, but more inclusion but family learned sign language to help be involved. Mom first to learn sign, then dad, then brother (gradually)

Not in any clubs at the moment. Used to be with ASL Dawgs.

Not been around many deaf/Deaf people.

Computer science major at UGA with interpreter through the DRC.

Most common injustice: few deaf friends, and very very rare for hearing parents to know sign language.

VR interpreter: bad experience

good interpreters in Atlanta, few in Athens

After covid, less Deaf people in Athens. No in person, masks issues...

Dad in army DD school system / homeschooled. Mom interpreter often.

In elementary school, in separate deaf group

Forklift training, experienced discrimination at Lowes.

"Ive never see deaf person promoted to higher position ever. These places claim to be equal opportunity employment but they aren't."

"NFL say they will have interpreter at show, but they never show up. This is not equal."

Has worked at publix for less than a year.

Old roommate Luke works at ASD - also previous deaf grad student from UGA.

Not aware of that many Deaf artists or performers

Aware of CODA movie

Traveled often; Met Russian couple that were deaf. Sign for “world” and able to communicate with them a little bit!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Whether walking down the street, in public transport, or at the office, it's extremely likely that you have interacted with deaf people. However, it's possible that you haven't even noticed: Deafness is an invisible condition most of the time. You'll hardly be able to recognize a deaf person just by looking at them because not all deaf people wear hearing aids and can, therefore, go easily unnoticed.

Over five percent of the world's population - or 466 million people - has disabling hearing loss. But there are still many flawed stereotypes about the deaf community, which is why many of its members experience exclusion and discrimination.

There's one main reason for that: Deaf people were traditionally encouraged to adapt to the lifestyle of hearing people. They were never allowed to fully develop a culturally Deaf identity and gain the tools they needed to access information.

Luckily, today we are seeing more and more actions challenging that old-school practice and looking to empower the Deaf community. Anyone can contribute to such a positive shift - so what exactly can you do to become an ally?
Learn about the Deaf community
There are two definitions of d/Deaf. First, there is the medical approach - deaf as a diagnosis. But then, there's a bigger one - Deaf in the sense of cultural belonging. Being deaf is not just about whether or to which degree a person can hear, it's related to the sense of belonging to the Deaf community, the relation to sign language and the Deaf identity altogether.

Deaf people think of themselves as different, but certainly not as disabled people. They might not be able to fully hear, but they can do everything that hearing people can - and perhaps even more.

People have traditionally left sign language to the Deaf community only - but why aren't we learning the language ourselves? Just think about all the things you are missing out on. For example, sign language poetry is something incredible!

And yet, one of the main frustrations of the deaf community is the lack of recognition of the sign language, the most important carrier of the Deaf culture. The hearing culture has traditionally dominated the space and replicated privilege, instead of letting alternatives flourish.

Our society is still far away from equal access to information. Deaf people need to be allowed to develop their own identity, rather than be forced to adapt to one of hearing people. Hearing people should learn how to provide them with the tools to access information and have more confidence in themselves.

Supporting Deaf people by recognizing all sign languages (with all of their different forms around the globe) as complete, living languages with their own grammar and syntax is the first step to becoming an ally.
Get out of your shell - and interact!
There are many everyday situations that can make deaf people feel excluded:

Healthcare; when the doctor doesn't know sign language so it's difficult to communicate the symptoms and diagnoses.

Institutions; when using voice or music to communicate important messages.

Public transport; when announcing the stops only by voice.

Culture; when plays in theatres or movies lack sign language interpreters.

Being an ally is all about being conscious of what's happening around you. If you see someone around you struggling with everyday situations, approach them to see what's the problem and offer to help.

Even if you are not sure, just ask.

When interacting with a deaf person, know that breaking the communication barrier is easier than you might think. Even though you might fail or embarrass yourself, try. You'll see that there's nothing to worry about and that the other person wants to communicate and they'll do their best to make it happen too.

Hearing people sometimes forget what it's like to interact with deaf people and create mishaps on accident - such as sending a voice message on WhatsApp. But these are easily forgettable if you simply show that you're trying.

Seeing the effort really is a gamechanger for deaf people. So why not learn a few signs in sign language? Just remember that there are different ones around the world, such as the ASL in the US, Libras in Brazil, or FSL in France. So do some research - even a sign like "thank you" or "hello" can brighten a deaf person's day.
Things you can do
There are ways you can support the Deaf community in everyday life, in family, at the workplace, or even when doing business.

One of the key things to realize is that deaf people are very visual - so having a screen or written document to share information can go a long way. Whether in communication, in presentations, or on the website, make sure to use the right fonts and don't make your content too colorful or overwhelming so it's as legible as possible.

But be careful: Also know that not every deaf person can read - so many situations may require an interpreter. If that's the case, make sure to avoid the ultimate 'faux pas': When talking to a deaf person, look at them, not the interpreter.

Sadly, 1 in 4 deaf people has left a job due to discrimination. So, if you hire or work with a deaf person, and you aren't sure about something, ask them. Before they arrive for their first day, inquire about whether there's anything they need and prepare the environment to make them feel welcome.

In general, try to focus on digital accessibility. If you're creating a corporate video, make sure to add sign language interpretation or at least captions. This will help you include people who are traditionally marginalized but also reach a bigger audience.

So, step up against injustice. For example, if you witness that a deaf person was refused a promotion opportunity because of his impairment, act. But don't make the decision for the deaf person, include them! In these situations, you can become an ally by asking him about what they would like to do and if there's a way you can help to support them in that. For example, do they want to talk to the employer? Offer to interpret for them.

It is estimated that by 2050 over 900 million people - or one in every 10 people - will have disabling hearing loss. Many people have hearing impairments and, in the future, many of us are going to suffer some kind of hearing loss, so we'll probably all depend on captions, and perhaps even sign language.

By empowering the Deaf community, all of us can benefit from greater cultural exchange and more diverse ideas. Just by shifting your mindset to proactively work towards that, you're already on the way to becoming an ally.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to be an Ally to the Deaf Community - Hand Talk

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Whether walking down the street, in public transport, or at the office, it's extremely likely that you have interacted with deaf people. However, it's possible that you haven't even noticed: Deafness is an invisible condition most of the time.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sound of Metal – Official Trailer | Prime Video

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Silent Child | Oscar® Winning Short Film

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Home | Georgia Center of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing (Nonprofit)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Georgia Center of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing (GCDHH) is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit that serves Deaf, Hard of Hearing, and DeafBlind across the state of Georgia.

# data[].attributes.body
ASL not recognized as a language until 1965 by Stokie.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
History Through Deaf Eyes - A Language Recognized

Linguists, who had previously ignored the sign languages of the world, began to demonstrate that they were natural languages equally capable of communicating abstract thought, emotion, and complex information as spoken languages. The result was that American Sign Language, American Sign Language (ASL), was recognized as the foundation of a visually oriented Deaf community.

Forty Years after the language gained academic recognition, schools have accepted sign language in the classroom; public events commonly include sign language interpreters; television and movie producers cast deaf actors; publishers welcome scholarly and popular books and articles on signing and Deaf Culture; students flock to sign language courses; and schools employ more deaf teachers, principals, and superintendents. For some deaf people, the most dramatic change is new pride in using their language in public.

In 1960 William Stokoe's Grammar of Sign Language challenged widely held perceptions about the visual language used by the Deaf community. Scientists welcomed the book's evidence of a new and unstudied language, but many educators of deaf students continued to denounce it and all sign language research. It would take 20 more years before Stokoe's work would reverse common misunderstandings about ASL.

Gallaudet University Archives

In 1965, A Dictionary of American Sign Language described signs of the language and led others to study deaf people's sign language around the world. Symbols were used to identify placement, handshape, and movement of signs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
American Sign Language, a language recognized - Awareness, Access and Change | Gallaudet University

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
History Through Deaf Eyes - A Language Recognized Linguists, who had previously ignored the sign languages of the world, began to demonstrate that they

# data[].attributes.body
Audism: people being oppressed because of their audible ability

Linguism : people being oppressed because of their language

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
History Through Deaf Eyes - A Deaf Variety of the Human Race

Alexander Graham Bell studied eugenics, the science of improving a species. When he published "Upon the Formation of a Deaf Variety of the Human Race" in 1884, Bell issued a warning that deaf people were forming clubs, socializing with one another and, worst of all, marrying other deaf people. He concluded that the creation of a "deaf race" was underway. Other researchers soon countered Bell's empirical evidence: although deafness can be inherited, only a small percentage of deaf people have deaf children. But the image of an insular, inbred, and proliferating deaf culture became a potent weapon for the oralist cause. Bell's claims were widely repeated for years to come.

"Those who believe as I do, that the production of a defective race of human beings would be a great calamity to the world, will examine carefully the causes that lead to the intermarriage of the deaf with the object of applying a remedy." ~ Alexander Graham Bell

Bell's wife, Mabel Hubbard Bell, was deaf and a skilled speech reader. Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing

In this cartoon from an 1892 edition of the Silent Echo, Edward Miner Gallaudet, President of Gallaudet College, and Alexander Graham Bell spar over including deaf students in the college's teacher training program. Bell was opposed to deaf teachers because they would bring sign language to the schools. Gallaudet University Archives

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Deaf Variety of the Human Race | Gallaudet University

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
History Through Deaf Eyes - A Deaf Variety of the Human Race Alexander Graham Bell studied eugenics, the science of improving a species. When he published

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
An amateur interpreter for the deaf was tapped at the last minute to provide sign language during a press conference - and things got out of hand.

Before Hurricane Irma ripped through Florida, Manatee County leaders were preparing to address the public with "crucial" information.

That's when, "in a pinch," they called Marshall Greene to communicate using sign language, according to WFLA.

Greene, a lifeguard for the county, veered off course when he began signing words like "pizza," "bear," and "monster," among others - words that had nothing to do with the press conference.

"I knew something went horribly wrong," Charlene McCarthy told WFLA. McCarthy owns VisCom, a company that regularly provides interpreters for the county.

"It was horribly unnerving for me to watch that, knowing I could provide a qualified, certified interpreter," she fumed.

Greene's family told WFLA he was just doing what the county asked of him.

"He can't expect to communicate something he doesn't know," Greene's father told the station.

Social media users were outraged, writing that the bogus interpreter posed a "danger" to society.

"Who is this person you are using as a sign language interpreter? This person is not qualified!" Sandra Roche commented on the county's video of the press conference.

"What a disservice to the deaf community at such a critical time," Maggie Gregory wrote.

Others weren't as quick to be angry: "Take it easy on the guy!" Becky Bates-Williams fired back. "I've been in his position and it is frightening... He is doing the best he can."

The makeshift interpreter also should have been facing forward, instead of looking at the speaker.

"It was obvious to me he wasn't a professional interpreter. I was totally shocked," Chris Wagner, former president of the National Association of the Deaf, told WFLA.

The deaf community is demanding an apology from the county for the blunder, according to WFLA.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Deaf community outraged after interpreter signed gibberish before Irma

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
An amateur interpreter for the deaf was tapped at the last minute to provide sign language during a press conference - and things got out of hand. Before Hurricane Irma ripped through Florida, Mana...

# data[].attributes.headline
Fake sign language interpreters again and again...

# data[].attributes.subject
Fake sign language interpreters again and again...

# data[].attributes.body
Unacceptable!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
TAMPA, Florida -- Hearing-impaired people tuning in to a news conference about the arrest of a suspected serial killer got a message of gibberish from an American Sign Language interpreter.

As Tampa police Chief Brian Dugan announced the arrest of Howell Donaldson Wednesday night, interpreter Derlyn Roberts was there beside him, making signs that made no sense.

"She sat up there and waved her arms like she was singing Jingle Bells," Rachell Settambrino, who is deaf and teaches American Sign Language at the University of South Florida, told the Tampa Bay Times through an interpreter.

Among the things Roberts signed, according to Settambrino, was the following: "Fifty-one hours ago, zero 12 22 (indecipherable) murder three minutes in 14 weeks ago in old (indecipherable) murder four five 55,000 plea 10 arrest murder bush (indecipherable) three age 24."

In fact, the chief was providing a timeline of the four shootings, and describing how his agency had received some 5,000 tips before arresting the 24-year-old suspect.

"I was disappointed, confused, upset and really want to know why the city of Tampa's chief of police, who is responsible for my safety ... did not check her out," Settambrino said.

Tampa Police Department spokesman Steve Hegarty said Monday that Roberts just showed up and told him she was there to provide the sign language interpretation at the Nov. 28 news conference. He assumed that someone else at the department called the service it uses for interpreters.

"I allowed her to do it. I didn't ask enough questions," Hegarty said. "

How she knew about the press conference and why she volunteered to do sign language interpretation is still a mystery Hegarty wants to solve.

"I don't know what motivates her, but she hasn't returned my calls," he said. "I would like to know both professionally, and also personally, how did it occur to you to come down to do that?"

At the next day's follow-up news conference, a different interpreter, Ben Zapata, was beside the chief.

Hegarty said she won't face any charges. A person matching Roberts' name and age has an extensive criminal record that includes convictions for fraud over $50,000 and fraudulent use of personal information, but Hegarty couldn't confirm they are the same person. A message left at a number listed for Roberts wasn't immediately returned.

It is the most recent example of an apparently unqualified signer appearing at news conferences. In September, as Hurricane Irma approached Florida and officials announced a mandatory evacuation, an interpreter in nearby Manatee County began signing words like "pizza," ''monster" and "bear," along with other gibberish.

Manatee County officials later said they were in a pinch and called on a county employee who had an understanding of sign language because he communicates with his deaf brother. However, it quickly became apparent he was in over his head. The deaf community demanded an apology and the video of the news conference went viral.

In 2013 in South Africa, a fake interpreter appeared beside former President Barack Obama and other world leaders during a memorial service for Nelson Mandela, apparently signing gibberish. He later said he is schizophrenic and had seen angels descending in the stadium where the event took place.

Settambrino said Florida, unlike some other states, does not require ASL interpreters to be certified through the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, a national nonprofit that "seeks to uphold standards, ethics, and professionalism" for the field, according to its website.

Florida says only that ASL interpreters have to be "qualified," Settambrino said. "But what is that definition of qualified?"
Report a typo to the ABC13 staff

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fake sign language interpreter delivered gibberish in Florida

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Hearing-impaired people tuning in to a news conference about the arrest of a suspected serial killer got a message of gibberish from an American Sign Language interpreter.

# data[].attributes.headline
The issue of viral media and the danger of a one sided story

# data[].attributes.subject
The issue of viral media and the danger of a one sided story

# data[].attributes.body
Viral Video Shows Joyful Reaction Of Newborn Baby With Hearing Aides To Hearing Her Mom

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Viral Video Shows Joyful Reaction Of Newborn Baby With Hearing Aides To Hearing Her Mom

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Hearing Like Me - Hearing Loss Community

# data[].attributes.headline
Mental health misdiagnosis again and again and again...

# data[].attributes.subject
Mental health misdiagnosis again and again and again...

# data[].attributes.body
"Research over the last 40 years has increased understanding about mental health issues among deaf people, but communications barriers still frequently lead to misunderstandings between them and health care professionals or to misinterpretation of behavior that may or may not be psychopathological."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In the past, a person with deafness was often diagnosed with an intellectual disability or psychiatric disorder, said Karen Goldberg, M.D., at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP) last October in Chicago.

Research over the last 40 years has increased understanding about mental health issues among deaf people, but communications barriers still frequently lead to misunderstandings between them and health care professionals or to misinterpretation of behavior that may or may not be psychopathological.

Goldberg is assistant medical director at the National Deaf Academy (NDA), a private residential center in Mount Dora, Fla., that treats deaf patients with severe psychopathology, and knows firsthand about hearing loss. She discovered her own hearing difficulties when she was shifted to the back of the classroom as a 7-year-old.

"All of a sudden, I became very stupid," she said, recalling the consequences of her disconnection from the teacher's voice. She learned to compensate by sitting in the front of her classes, and she also learned about the stigma attached to deafness when her parents told her to keep it secret.

Many hearing parents of deaf children see hearing loss as pathology to be treated and overcome. They want their children to hear and speak like" normal" people. They opt for "oralism": reading lips and learning to speak aloud, and often adopt technological solutions to deafness, like cochlear implants.

In contrast, many deaf people see themselves as members of a cultural and linguistic minority built around American Sign Language. Goldberg and other speakers at the AACAP workshop are firmly in this second camp. To them, not learning sign language while waiting until children are old enough to receive implants creates another developmental obstacle.

Sanjay Gulati, M.D.: Working with deaf patients who also have psychiatric disorders is difficult and demands an insight into the world of the deaf.
Credit: Aaron Levin

"During the time that the parents are pursuing implantation they rarely also use sign language, and many cochlear implant programs discourage it," said Sanjay Gulati, M.D., a child psychiatrist at Cambridge Hospital and an instructor in psychiatry at Harvard. Gulati lost most of his hearing between the ages of 10 and 30, and now specializes in care of children who are deaf.

"So on top of any language delay the child might already have, the [implantation and associated] rehabilitation period can add additional language delay," he said.

"Communication difficulties between parents and deaf children impair attachment, bonding, and the child's psychological development," said Goldberg. The parents' reaction to a diagnosis of deafness may also increase the child's sense of isolation or rejection.

"If children can't communicate in language, they may resort to acting out and end up with a diagnosis of oppositional defiant disorder or conduct disorder," said Gulati.

The staff at the NDA often has to teach incoming students signs, social skills, and reciprocal conversation skills before they can start treatment. IQ tests, unless given by a fluent signer, may not convey an accurate picture of a deaf person's cognitive skills.

Working with deaf patients who also have psychiatric disorders is difficult and demands an insight into the world of the deaf, said Gulati.

Deafness may arise from any of several causes.

"Traumatically or organically acquired deafness [from, say, rubella infection, neonatal oxygen treatment, or meningitis] is often accompanied by learning disability or other cognitive deficits that can lead to or predispose to behavior problems," said Gulati in a later interview.

"Because some syndromic deafness [hearing loss linked to a medical illness] is associated with cardiac or renal problems, I routinely screen for these conditions as part of initial workup or before starting a medication," he said.

Typical screening includes blood urea nitrogen, creatinine, renal ultrasound, and an EKG. Key considerations include the use of stimulant medications for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, which requires EKG screening; and the use of lithium for bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder, or intermittent explosive disorder. Patients taking lithium must be followed for kidney function.

"Side effects of psychotropic medication are a common problem, too, since it is often more difficult [with deaf patients] to establish the level of trusting rapport needed to help a patient deal with difficult side effects," he said. "Many patients will simply stop a medication and not return to the doctor-and then sometimes mistakenly conclude that no medicine will work for them."

Often doctors misunderstand how the experience of deafness alters psychiatric presentation, resulting in misdiagnosis, he said.

There are other difficulties as well in dealing with deaf patients with psychiatric problems. For example, said NDA counselor Melissa Watson, M.A., at the AACAP meeting, "Deaf people tend to be blunt." They may also throw in extra words, a sign of possible agitation but not of schizophrenia. Sometimes they go into excessive detail, which can be confused with obsessive-compulsive symptoms. They may report "hearing voices," but since most deaf people are not totally deaf, they may hear some real sounds that they try to explain as voices.

"A clinician may assume a deaf child has an attentional problem when the real problem is that communication in the classroom is not working for the child or that his or her academic ability has been overestimated in some ways or underestimated in others by testers unfamiliar with deaf children," said Gulati.

Psychiatrists and mental health professionals should work with an expert sign language interpreter, one with knowledge of the subject matter as well as the signing skills, to avoid confusion. Gulati frequently uses a certified deaf interpreter for patients who are not fluent in American Sign Language and for those who are psychotic, brain damaged, or significantly language deprived.

"Interpreters must be experienced in mental health or they will get confused and think they are missing something or misunderstanding the patient or the doctor," said Watson. Interpreters do their utmost to serve only as a conduit or facilitator, without injecting their own thoughts into the conversation, she said. Using them has other advantages, too.

"It's cheaper to pay for an interpreter than to pay malpractice claims," she said. ▪

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Deaf Children's Behavior Often Mistaken for Mental Disorder

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the past, a person with deafness was often diagnosed with an intellectual disability or psychiatric disorder, said Karen Goldberg, M.D., at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP) last October in Chicago.

# data[].attributes.body
Approx. 360 million people worldwide with hearing loss

Approx. 17% of the US population (36 million)

Roughly 2 or 3 out of every 1,000 children are born deaf

Estimated between 360,000 to 512,000 ASL signers in US

# data[].attributes.body
POSITIVE:

Deaf

Hard of Hearing

NEGATIVE:

Hearing impaired

Deaf mute

Auditory handicap

Hearing handicapped

Prelingually Deaf

Deaf and Dumb

# data[].attributes.headline
ASL not recognized as a foreign language in Georgia!!!! We need to change this!!!

# data[].attributes.subject
ASL not recognized as a foreign language in Georgia!!!! We need to change this!!!

# data[].attributes.body
Laura Dewey Bridgeman (1829-1889) - first documented DeafBlind individual. Why is Helen Keller the only individual we briefly hear about in all of history?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Are you familiar with any famous deaf people who've made important contributions to history? From composers to athletes, many overcame the challenges of deafness to achieve success in their lives.

In this article, we'll explore 13 famous deaf people who have changed the world with their unique accomplishments. The stories behind these incredible people's lives will show you that disability shouldn't be a barrier to success.

1. Helen Keller

Helen Keller

Helen Keller was the first deaf-blind person to earn a bachelor's degree, in 1904, from Radcliffe College. She came from a close family who had no idea how to communicate with her after she became blind and deaf at 19 months old, due to a childhood illness.

To aid Keller's education, her parents hired Annie Sullivan to be her teacher. Annie herself was partially blind and had been educated at the Perkins School for the Blind.

Much of Keller's and Ms. Sullivan's story is shared in the film, "The Miracle Worker," showing the famous breakthrough when Helen first learns what "water" means.

During college, Keller began writing, which she continued until her death. She published many books, including the famous autobiography, "The Story of My Life," and was a frequent contributor to various publications.

An author and activist, she campaigned for women's and disability rights. Keller was one of those famous deaf people who thrived through enormous support.

2. Thomas Edison

Thomas Edison was an American inventor who began losing his hearing as a child. By the time he was a teenager, he was deaf.

Edison was responsible for important inventions of the modern era that we now take for granted, such as the light bulb, phonograph, and motion picture camera.

So Edison could hear delicate sounds and melodies, he would bite down on his phonograph to feel the sound waves. It's been said that he enjoyed the silence of being deaf because it prevented distraction while he worked.

3. Marlee Matlin

Marlee Matlin is an actress and spokesperson who became deaf at 18 months old.

Matlin's first major film role was in "Children of a Lesser God" in 1986, for which she won the Academy Award for Best Actress for her leading role in the film. She was the first deaf actress to win the award (and the youngest).

A member of the National Association for the Deaf (NAD), she has subsequently won many film and TV awards and continues to star in TV and film.

Born into a hearing family, Matlin is a fierce advocate for deaf rights. She donates her time and money to various charities, such as Easter Seals, Red Cross, and the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation.

When Matlin travels for work, she makes a point to visit deaf and hard of hearing children in different countries around the world. She's one of several famous deaf people who continues to make a positive impact.

4. Ludwig van Beethoven

Beethoven, born in Germany, was a composer and pianist who is one of the most highly regarded composers in the world. He demonstrated musical talent from a young age, and his father was a tough teacher.

His hearing began deteriorating when he was 28. By the time he became completely deaf in 1814, he stopped making public appearances.

But because Beethoven still had such a strong musical memory and talent, he continued to compose, including "Fidelio," an opera; Symphony No. 9; piano sonatas; and string quartets, including the "Grosse Fuge."

5. Charles Shirreff

Charles Shirreff was a Scottish painter who became deaf at age 3 or 4. His wealthy father sent him to school at age 10 so he could learn to write.

The first deaf school in Britain was started by Thomas Braidwood, who became acquainted with the senior Shirreff. The young Shirreff relied on sign language for communication.

At age 18, Shirreff left the Braidwood school to attend an art school in London. He started his career painting miniature portraits, then pastels, oil paintings, and pencil drawings. He became so successful that he was able to support his family after his father suffered financially during the Crisis of 1772.

6. John Goodricke

John Goodricke plaque on a stone wall. Text on the plaque reads, "From a window in Treasurer's House near this tablet, the young deaf and dumb astronomer, John Goodricke, 1764 - 1786, who was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society at the age of 21. observed the periodicity of the star ALGOL and discovered the variation of delta CEPHEI and other stars thus laying the foundation of modern measurement of the Universe.

John Goodricke became deaf due to a childhood illness. He attended Thomas Braidwood's school, the same school that painter Charles Shirreff attended.

Goodricke's interest in astronomy began early. He is credited with discovering Algol, a binary star. For this, he was awarded the Copley Medal in 1783.

Unfortunately, Goodricke never learned of this award, as he died four days later from pneumonia at age 21.

7. Judith Scott

Born in Cincinnati, Ohio, Judith Scott was not only deaf but she was also born with Down syndrome. A series of tests had doctors labeling her as "ineducable." They placed her in institutions from age 7, when she was taken from her parents.

Scott had a twin sister, and the separation had a profound effect on both of them. After 35 years, Judith's sister was able to take her out and put her into an art school, the first space of its kind for disabled people.

After meeting a fellow artist, Sylvia Seventy, who introduced her to fiber art, Scott began creating unique mixed media sculptures.

With found objects and cord, string, yarn, and other fibers, she created unusual and fascinating art pieces that brought her worldwide recognition after a 1999 art exhibition and a book publication based on her work.

Scott created over 200 sculptures before her death in 2005.

8. Douglas Tilden

Douglas Tilden became deaf from scarlet fever at age 4.

A few years after graduating from a school for the deaf in Berkeley, California, he picked up sculpting; his first art piece was "Tired Wrestler," in 1885, which immediately brought him recognition.

Tilden's art education began at the Academy of Design in New York. Afterwards, he attended art school in Paris, where he had his first exhibition, showing "The National Game," a sculpture of a baseball pitcher. He won an award for this in 1889.

After a couple of personal hardships (a stint in a mental hospital and divorce), Tilden stopped creating sculptures and took a job sculpting animals for films. He began isolating himself and scarcely eating while creating sculptures; when a neighbor learned of his predicament, Tilden began receiving a state pension.

Tilden died in 1935 of a heart attack, at age 75. He had been working on a monument for the city of San Francisco at the time of his death.

9. Andrew Foster

Andrew Jackson Foster was a teacher who pioneered deaf education in Africa. He became deaf at 11 years old, when he and his brother were stricken with spinal meningitis.

Foster was born in 1925 in Alabama. His education ended in the sixth grade, due to a state law that disallowed African Americans to receive higher than a sixth-grade education.

However, Foster was able to continue his education by attending another deaf school in Michigan and completed his high school education through a correspondence school. He applied to Gallaudet University but was turned down because of his race; it was only after receiving a full scholarship that he was able to attend.

During his stay in Michigan, Foster felt the pull to become a missionary. He was also a mentor to deaf African American children and did fundraising to build schools in Africa.

When he arrived in Ghana, Foster used a public school to bring deaf children together for education and teaching of the Gospel, which eventually morphed into the Ghana Mission School for the Deaf.

By the time of his death in 1987 in a plane crash, Foster had built 32 schools and missions for the deaf throughout Africa.

10. Heather Whitestone

Heather Whitestone was the first deaf Miss America in 1995. She became deaf at 18 months old due to meningitis or influenza.

Being born in Alabama, Whitestone learned about Helen Keller in elementary school, and Keller became her role model.

After falling behind in school, Whitestone asked her parents to send her to a deaf school, where she thrived. She eventually earned a university degree.

Thereafter, she began appearing in beauty pageants; she won Miss Alabama in 1994 before her Miss America win. That year (1995), she spent time with deaf children, showing them the power of positive thinking.

Whitestone has published four books and is a conservative activist.

11. Laura Bridgman

Black and white portrait of Laura Bridgman wearing eyeglasses and sewing.

Laura Bridgman, born in 1829, became deaf and blind at two years old due to scarlet fever. She was the first deaf-blind woman to learn how to read and write using Braille and fingerspelling.

Bridgman was friends with Annie Sullivan, who was Helen Keller's teacher. Both Bridgman and Sullivan were students at the Perkins School for the Blind.

At 12 years old, Bridgman met Charles Dickens while he was touring the U.S. He wrote about her in his book, "American Notes," noting her education and fingerspelling.

Bridgman became famous because of Dickens, and the teachers at Perkins noticed she received more favorable attention than the other students.

Bridgman lived at the Perkins School all her life, spending her time sewing, reading, and writing. She died in 1889.

12. Phyllis Frelich

Phyllis Frelich, who was born to deaf parents, was the first actor to win a Tony Award (for "Children of a Lesser God"). She attended a school for the deaf in North Dakota before going to Gallaudet University, where she earned a degree in library science.

Frelich discovered her love for theater during her time at Gallaudet. She was one of the founders of the National Theater of the Deaf (NTD).

Interestingly, Frelich's award-winning stage role in "Children of a Lesser God '' was created for her by writer Mark Medoff. She starred in other Medoff plays, and appeared on many TV shows and films.

She was the first deaf actress to become a member of the Screen Actors Guild (SAG), paving the way for other deaf actors. She is considered one of the most influential deaf performers.

13. Matt Hamill

Matt Hamill, a former MMA fighter and Olympic wrestler, is the first deaf person to win a national collegiate championship.

Born deaf, his stepfather taught him the mechanics of wrestling, which Hamill pursued during his years at RIT and Purdue University.

Hamill has won championships in both MMA and the Olympics, and continues to fight professionally. A 2010 film, "The Hammer," is based on Hamill's life and fighting career.

Conclusion

These 13 famous deaf people have had a major impact on history, proving that deafness is no barrier to success. With accomplishments in different fields, from music to science, these 13 will continue to inspire deaf and hard of hearing people for generations to come.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
13 Famous Deaf People Who Changed the World

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Briefly explore the lives of 13 amazing deaf people and their impact on world history. Click here to learn more about them!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Show authors

6067 Accesses

6 Citations

141 Altmetric

Metrics

Abstract

Face coverings have been key in reducing the spread of COVID-19. At the same time, they have hindered interpersonal communication, particularly for those who rely on speechreading to aid communication. The available research indicated that deaf/hard of hearing (HoH) people experienced great difficulty communicating with people wearing masks and negative effects on wellbeing. Here we extended these findings by exploring which factors predict deaf/HoH people's communication difficulties, loss of information, and wellbeing. We also explored the factors predicting perceived usefulness of transparent face coverings and alternative ways of communicating. We report the findings from an accessible survey study, released in two written and three signed languages. Responses from 395 deaf/HoH UK and Spanish residents were collected online at a time when masks were mandatory. We investigated whether onset and level of deafness, knowledge of sign language, speechreading fluency, and country of residence predicted communication difficulties, wellbeing, and degree to which transparent face coverings were considered useful. Overall, deaf/HoH people and their relatives used masks most of the time despite greater communication difficulties. Late-onset deaf people were the group that experienced more difficulties in communication, and also reported lower wellbeing. However, both early- and late-onset deaf people reported missing more information and feeling more disconnected from society than HoH people. Finally, signers valued transparent face shields more positively than non-signers. The latter suggests that, while seeing the lips is positive to everyone, signers appreciate seeing the whole facial expression. Importantly, our data also revealed the importance of visual communication other than speechreading to facilitate face-to-face interactions.

Highlights

Late-onset deaf people experienced more difficulties in communication and low wellbeing.

Severely/profoundly deaf people missed more information and felt disconnected from society.

Signers preferred completely transparent face coverings.

More frequent use of masks doesn't necessarily imply more difficulty communicating.

Visual communication, pro-social behaviour, and societal structure might help easing communication.

Significance statement

The present study is a tight collaboration between deaf and hearing researchers in the fields of cognitive psychology and language processing in deaf people. We investigate the communication challenges faced by deaf and hard of hearing (HoH) people due to the community-wide use of face masks to help stopping the spread of COVID-19. Previous knowledge of basic research on language processing in deaf people informed both the survey's design and the selection of predictors for the regression analyses. For example, level and onset of deafness were included as separate predictors because basic research shows that they result in different levels of reliance on speechreading to aid communication. Similarly, sign languages (SLs) are the first language of many deaf/HoH people. Knowing a SL could equip the signer with visual-communication strategies other than speechreading.

Our findings highlight the importance of acknowledging the diversity in the deaf/HoH population and hence tailor interventions to their specific needs. We found that late-onset severely and profoundly deaf people experienced more difficulties communicating and lower wellbeing. However, it was signers who thought they had missed more information and felt more disconnected from society. Clear window masks, while better than opaque masks for all deaf/HoH people, might be most effective for fluent speechreaders and for non-signers. Interactions with signers could be improved by using completely transparent face coverings, paired with increased ventilation and social distancing for safety. Finally, other ways of communication such as using SL as much as possible, gesturing, writing or a combination of them can be particularly useful for deaf people.

Introduction

Face masks have been shown to effectively reduce the risk of COVID-19 infection (Chu et al., 2020). This meant that by the summer of 2020 most countries required use of masks in public locations (Howard et al., 2021). Furthermore, it is likely that the use of face coverings will persist to some degree in the near future (Ballard, 2022; BBC, 2021; Wisconsin Public Radio, 2022). Facial coverings have been essential to control the spread of the virus and therefore to save lives. At the same time, masks hinder interpersonal communication as they attenuate the vocal sounds and cover facial expressions and lip movements (Mheidly et al., 2020). Masks add to the communication challenges faced by deaf and hard-of-hearing (HoH) people, who often rely on speechreading (lipreading1) to aid communication. The deaf and HoH communities warned early in the pandemic that use of face masks was likely to have a negative impact on communication (see e.g. jewishnews.timesofisrael.com, 2020; Lavanguardia.com, 2021; NDCS, 2021; RNID, 2021b; Saiz et al., 2022) because it impedes speechreading. Similar warnings were issued from the medical community (Chodosh et al., 2020), highlighting that masks negatively affect speech perception in hospitals (particularly for older people) and that the lack of visual cues from the face was likely to have a major impact on deaf people (see Tavanai et al., 2021). The present survey study investigated the impact of face masks on loss of information, wellbeing, and how communication could be improved.

According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), approximately 430 million people worldwide have hearing loss (WHO, 2021), 12 million in the UK (RNID, 2021a), and over one million in Spain (see e.g. INE, 2021). It is well known that the deaf and HoH population is extremely heterogeneous. For example, in the UK approximately 28% of deaf/HoH people became deaf/HoH at birth or early childhood, and around 71% became deaf/HoH later in life, most of them as a result of ageing (see e.g. ONS, 2018). People with different onset of deafness are likely to adopt different communication strategies (Garstecki & Erler, 1999). For instance, it has been shown that people with late-onset deafness might be reluctant to disclose their deafness, reducing the number of social interactions they experience altogether (Barker et al., 2017). Conversely, early-onset deaf people are likely to have developed more efficient visual communication strategies (including learning sign language, developing better speechreading ability, use of manually coded speech, cued speech, increased use of pointing and gesturing, etc., see e.g. Gravel & O'Gara, 2003; Mohammed et al., 2006). A second source of differences is linked to the amount of speech signal that can be accessed depending on the level of deafness. Even individuals with mild or moderate hearing loss (referred through this paper as HoH) often miss most consonants and experience difficulty perceiving vowel sounds (see e.g. Northern & Downs, 2002). On the other hand, speech can be largely inaudible without hearing aids to people with severe or profound hearing loss (referred through this manuscript as deaf; see e.g. Northern & Downs, 2002; Olusanya et al., 2019). There are also differences in age of first language acquisition and language fluency in either spoken or sign language. For example, it has been found that children with mild to severe deafness, who often are not exposed early to a sign language, show delays in spoken language development (Tomblin et al., 2015). However, deaf children who have been exposed to an accessible visual language early in life are much less likely to show the detrimental effects of language deprivation (see e.g. Humphries et al., 2012; Kushalnagar et al., 2010).

Another critical source of differences is the amount of information that can be accessed through speechreading in interactions without masks, with only a proportion of deaf/HoH people being fluent speechreaders. With only 30-40% of speech sounds distinguishable on the lip-patterns (Woodward & Barber, 1960), proficient access to speech through speechreading is challenging for many deaf/HoH people. All these differences lead to highly variable everyday communication experiences that can be affected differently by the use of face masks. Finally, another factor relevant to everyday communication while using face coverings could be the cross-cultural differences affecting the frequency with which masks have been used and the development of communication alternatives. Here we explore the impact of mask usage on deaf/HoH people in two countries where regulations about mandatory mask usage was distinct: Spain and the UK. In Spain, using face masks was mandatory at the time of the survey (November 2020 to February 2021) in public in both indoor and outdoor spaces and with very few exemptions allowed (e.g. with an updated certificate from a medical practitioner justifying the exemption). In the UK, outdoor mask use was not mandatory, and there were more exemptions compared to Spain. These differences, together with other possible cultural differences (i.e. more generalised use of gestures accompanying speech in Spain), could have led to different communicative experiences. In summary, in addition to country of residence, we study whether onset and level of deafness, knowledge of sign language, and speechreading ability predict respondents' perceptions of difficulty in communication, impact on wellbeing, and efficacy of clear view face coverings.

Communication difficulties

A handful of survey studies run by organisations working with deaf/HoH people reported that 85% of deaf/HoH respondents saw face coverings as an impediment for speechreading, and 72% of HoH respondents thought that masks made it more difficult for them to use their residual hearing to aid speech comprehension (Ideas for Ears, 2020). Market research from the hearing aids industry found that masks made communication more difficult and contributed to an increase in frustration, embarrassment, and isolation amongst the hearing aid users that answered their survey (Specsavers, 2021). Trecca et al. ( 2020) reported preliminary data from 59 Italian hospital patients with mild to profound hearing loss. The patients included in this study expressed concerns about the sound attenuation (44% of respondents) and the impossibility of speechreading when medical practitioners were using masks (56% of respondents). A survey conducted before masks were mandatory in the UK found that deaf/HoH people were concerned that the use of face coverings was becoming more common, with a trend for people with more severe levels of deafness to express higher levels of concern (Naylor et al., 2020). Another study conducted in the UK (Saunders et al., 2021) found that face coverings had a more negative impact in communication for deaf/HoH than for hearing people. In an online survey study of over 400 deaf/HoH people that was analysed using a combination of descriptive statistics and thematic analyses, Saunders et al. ( 2021) found detrimental effects of face coverings in the quality of hearing and understanding, significantly more for people with poor/very poor self-reported hearing. Furthermore, communication with masks was perceived by most participants as fatiguing and frustrating. The current study aims to build up on these previous results by exploring how the above predictors influence-if at all-the perceived difficulty of communicating. Saunders et al. ( 2021) also reported that the impact of face coverings might depend on the conversational situation, having a larger negative impact on medical settings or at work than in communication with family and friends. Here, besides a general measure of difficulty communicating when the conversational partner was using a mask, we added specific questions about professional as well as social situations.

Loss of information and wellbeing

The increase in the use of face masks is likely to result in loss of information conveyed in interactions using masks. Studies carried out in medical settings pre-COVID, where masks were used but not as extensively, indicate that deaf/HoH people reported having missed considerable amounts of relevant information. In a study with 95 deaf/HoH university students in the UK and Ireland, Henn et al. ( 2021) found that 60% of participants experienced miscommunication during consultations that involved diagnosis, advice, and information about medication. Importantly, speaking while wearing surgical masks was one of the factors linked to miscommunications during consultations. Here we study whether or not the amount of information that deaf/HoH people thought they missed is linked to the above predictors.

While being hard for everyone (Epifanio et al., 2021; Ping et al., 2020), the community-wide use of face masks could have important consequences on deaf/HoH people's wellbeing. Even before the COVID outbreak, research showed that deaf people experience numerous communication challenges, which have been linked to poorer mental health and lower quality of life (e.g. Margaret du Feu, 2014). One important reason why communication issues specific to face masks could have disproportionate consequences for deaf/HoH people is that many of them might rely predominantly on speechreading. Previous research has shown that deaf/HoH people are, as a group, more proficient speechreaders than hearing people (Mohammed et al., 2006), possibly having developed over time more efficient strategies to utilise visual speech information. For example, Kyle et al. ( 2013) found no differences in speechreading ability between hearing and early-onset deaf children. However, Mohammed et al. ( 2006) found better speechreading skill in a group of adult early-onset deaf people when compared to hearing people. These findings suggest a developmental trajectory in which deaf/HoH people improve their speechreading skill as a consequence of communication experience. Another reason why face covering might affect deaf/HoH people more is that mouth patterns and facial expressions are essential for sign language comprehension (see e.g. Sutton-Spence & Woll, 1999). Therefore, signers are likely to also be affected by the use of masks. Despite the importance of studying the effects of face masks on deaf/HOH people's wellbeing, the number of empirical studies is extremely low. Saunders et al. ( 2021) found that for the deaf/HoH people in their study, the communication issues produced a number of negative emotions that included increased anxiety and feelings of isolation, as well as loss of confidence. Face coverings were also related with less willingness to engage in conversations and lower feeling of personal connection with the conversational partner. Here we explore whether the above predictors are linked to emotional wellbeing (measured as feeling of disconnection from society) and a general measure of quality of life that includes both mental and physical health. Our findings could reveal areas of vulnerability and thus contribute to more finely tuned guidelines offered to the deaf/HoH communities.

Ways to improve communication

It is important to note that communication success largely depends on the conversational partner. Whether or not the interlocutor is deaf/HoH aware, how much gesture/body language they use, if they know sign language or not, whether or not they have an accent that the deaf/HoH person is familiar with, and how clear their mouth patterns are (e.g. Middleton et al., 2010; Smiljanić & Bradlow, 2009). Middleton et al. ( 2010) found that for communication success in clinical settings it is crucial that healthcare providers are deaf aware, and fluent signers are present if contact with deaf/HoH patients is common. Saunders et al. ( 2021) study revealed that deaf/HoH people adapted their own behaviour to include more gestures and explicit facial expressions (particularly using their eyes) to improve communication. In the present study we extended this question to the behaviours of the communication partners by asking deaf/HoH respondents to what degree they had observed other people's attempts to communicate in an alternative way.

To facilitate speechreading, the healthcare community has advocated for the use of transparent face masks (see e.g. Chodosh et al., 2020). Likewise, some members of the deaf/HoH communities have petitioned for a wider use of communication friendly face coverings such as masks with a clear window (for examples of deaf people's requests for clear face windows see e.g. Ideas for ears, 2020; NDCS, 2020). However, other deaf/HoH people have warned that transparent face masks might not resolve communication issues entirely (for an example in Spanish see Emilio Ferreiro, 2020), arguing that there might be large differences between deaf/HoH people in the amount of information they can extract from lip patterns. Published research seems to support this view. Take for example Mohammed et al's. ( 2006) study where deaf participants were not only significantly better speechreaders than hearing participants at the group level, but a large variability in speechreading skill can also be observed in the study's participants (Mohammed et al., 2006; Fig. 3). Furthermore, transparent face coverings are expensive, there are few manufacturers available, and manufacturing is not yet regulated (Chodosh et al., 2020). Research investigating to what extent transparent face coverings facilitate communication, and what groups are more likely to benefit from seeing the lips is still scarce. A pre-COVID study (Atcherson et al., 2017) found that deaf/HoH people who were trying to understand speech in noise performed best in the transparent than in the standard mask condition. Recently, Homans and Vroegop ( 2022) also found that transparent face shields, despite distorting the acoustic signal more than surgical masks, led to better speech understanding. Similarly, Saunders et al. ( 2021) also found that deaf/HoH respondents evaluated transparent face covering positively. Here we investigate deaf/HoH people's perceptions of both clear window masks and transparent face shields.

Current research

The empirical studies available seem to converge on the increased communication challenges imposed by masks for deaf/HoH people in general, both in terms of increased difficulty and detrimental effects on wellbeing. However, research is needed into what aspects of deafness, if any, play a bigger role during communication using face coverings. Additionally, little is known about how different regulations regarding mandatory use of masks have had an impact on communication. Finally, it has been suggested that transparent face coverings could have a beneficial effect for deaf/HoH people but there remains no research into who might benefit more from communication friendly face masks. Here we report an exploratory survey study that investigates which factors predict communication difficulties, wellbeing, and usefulness of transparent face coverings. Importantly, the present study has a strong focus on accessibility. In order to conduct research that represents well the deaf/HoH populations, we provided participants with the opportunity to see the survey in their preferred language. Therefore, we released our survey not only in two written languages but also 3 different sign languages (British sign language [BSL], Spanish sign language [lengua de signos española: LSE] and Catalan sign language [llengua de signes catalana: LSC]. Finally, the data for the present study was collected between November 2020 and February 2021, when face masks had been mandatory and widely used both in Spain and the UK for several months (Table 1).

Methods

Participants

Only complete datasets from deaf or HoH people living in Spain and the UK were downloaded from the Qualtrics platform and analysed (an additional 109 datasets corresponded to clicks on the survey link whereafter clicking consent and choosing language no other question was answered). A total of 395 deaf or HoH people from the UK (n = 273) and Spain (n = 122) voluntarily completed this survey in exchange for participation in a prize draw. Participants were on average 45.6 years old ( SD = 15.9, range 18-81), respondents' characteristics are shown in Table 2. One hundred and twelve deaf respondents (28.4% of the total sample) completed the sign language version of the survey. After they had given their answers, participants were offered the option to enter one of 6 prize draws (£50 or 50€ depending on their country of residency). Participants were recruited through word of mouth, social media posts, and deaf organisations email distribution lists. This study was approved by University of Essex Science and Health Ethics Sub-committee (ETH2021-0196).

Procedure

After giving informed consent, participants answered the survey items online, using their own devices and at their own pace. Participants were allowed 1 week to complete the survey; previous responses were saved as long as they accessed the link using the same device. Data was collected between the 3rd of November 2020 and the 10th of February 2021, while the use of face masks was mandatory in both countries (although with different regulations regarding indoors/outdoors wearing).

Materials

Our survey included demographic questions (e.g. age, gender, country of residence, etc.) as well as the following deafness and language background measures (predictors in the regression analyses, together with country of residence):

Country of residence

For the analyses, country of residence was vector coded − 1 = Spain and 1 = UK.

Level of deafness

Participants answered to the question "What is the level of deafness in your best ear?" they selected one of five options (mild, moderate, severe, profound, I don't know). We considered those who reported either mild or moderately deaf in their best ear to be HoH. We considered those who reported either severely or profoundly deaf in their best ear to be deaf, except for 5 who did not know. These 5 participants who answered "I don't know" to this item were categorised as deaf based on their answers to other background questions (e.g. they currently are or had been users of a cochlear implant, which is only offered to people with severe to profound deafness). This distinction is important because HoH people have some access to speech sounds without aids, while severely or profoundly deaf people generally have very little or no access to speech sounds without aids. For the analyses, level of deafness was vector coded − 1 = HoH and 1 = deaf.

Onset of deafness

People that became deaf at age 10 or older were considered late-onset, while people becoming deaf before the age of 9 years old were considered early-onset. This distinction was based on previous studies with deaf people who considered age 9 as the cut-off age for early language development (for a recent review see Mayberry & Kluender, 2018). In our sample, 228 out of 276 early-onset respondents were deaf at birth or before 3 years of age, only 9 reported becoming deaf between the ages of 6 and 9. Finally, 108 out of the 120 late-onset respondents became deaf after the age of 15. For the analyses, onset of deafness was vector coded − 1 = Late and 1 = early.

Knowledge of SL

Participants answered yes if they knew any sign language and no if they did not know any sign language. For the analyses, Knowledge of SL was coded − 1 = non-signer and 1 = signer.

Lipreading fluency

Participants were considered non-fluent if they responded average, poor, or not at all at the question "Indicate how fluent you are-that is how well you are able to communicate-in Spoken English: lipreading" (in the Spanish version: "Indicate how fluent you are-that is how well you are able to communicate-in Spoken Spanish: lipreading"). If their answer was I don't know it at all, poor, or average they were considered non-fluent. Conversely, if their answer was good, excellent, or native-like they were considered fluent at lipreading. For the analyses, lipreading fluency was vector coded − 1 = non-fluent and 1 = fluent.

Measures of mask usage

We also included questions aimed to explore the frequency of their experiences in communication settings using face masks. Specifically, respondents answered, on a scale of 1 (never) to 5 (always), how often masks were worn outside of their own house by themselves, their family members, their deaf friends, and their hearing friends. They also answered how many hours a day they communicated with other people that were wearing a mask. The response options (1-4) were "less than 1 h a day", "1-3 h a day", "4-6 h a day" and "more than 6 h a day".

Finally, the dependent measures of interest were the following:

General difficulty communicating with others who wear a mask

Participants answered the question "In general, how easy do you think communication is when other people wear a face mask?" the response options (1-5) were, "1 =  very difficult", "2 =  difficult", "3 =  neither difficult or easy", "4 =  easy", "5 =  very easy". Responses were reverse coded for analyses.

Difficulty communicating with others who wear a mask in professional situations

Difficulty communicating with others who wear a mask in informal social situations

This measure reflects the average of the inverse coded responses to the question "How easy do you think communication is when other people wear a face mask in the following situations?" in the following items: Communication with friends, communication with romantic partner, and communication with family (Cronbach's alpha = 0.913). The response options (1-5) were, "1 =  very difficult", "2 =  difficult", "3 =  neither difficult or easy", "4 =  easy", "5 =  very easy".

Amount of information missed

Emotional wellbeing: feeling of disconnection from society

General wellbeing: quality of life

We used the SF-12 questionnaire v.1 (Ware Jr et al., 1996) to measure quality of life in the 4 weeks prior to answering the survey. The SF-12 assess the impact of health on someone's everyday life that is often used as a wellbeing measure. The original SF-12 questionnaire has been translated to multiple languages, including Spanish (e.g. Vilagut et al., 2008) but not to any sign language. For the purposes of this research, we translated to BSL, LSE and LSC the questionnaire items (see details below). Since this questionnaire has not been validated with deaf and HoH populations, for the purposes of this study we use the raw scores in the analysis.

Perception of others' efforts to improve communication

Participants answered the question "In general, if you were missing some information when communicating with people that wore a mask and spoke, how much did they engage in alternative ways of communication (e.g. gesturing, writing, using the mobile phone, etc.)?" the response options (1-5) were "1 =  Not at all", "2 =  A little", "3 =  A moderate amount", "4 =  A lot", and "5 =  A great deal".

Perceived efficacy of clear window masks

Participants answered the question "How much do you think that face masks with a clear window help to solve communication issues?" We used the same response options included in the others' efforts to communicate measure.

Perceived efficacy of transparent face shields

Participants answered the question ""How much do you think that transparent face shields help to solve communication issues?" We used the same response options included in the others' efforts to communicate measure.

All survey items were developed in English and translated to written Spanish, British Sign Language (BSL), Spanish sign language (LSE) and Catalan Sign Language (LSC). We followed a back translation procedure in which, one proficient user of 2 languages translated all items from English to written Spanish and to BSL and from written Spanish to LSE and LSC. Several different proficient users of two of the languages, who had not seen the original items, then back-translated the written Spanish and BSL questions to English and the LSE and LSC questions to written Spanish. This procedure was repeated, by different independent translators with no knowledge of the previous versions, until congruency was achieved between the original and back translated items. There were 10 people involved in translations in total, 3 from English to Spanish, 2 from Spanish to LSE, 2 from English to BSL and 3 from Spanish to LSC.

Deaf native signers of BSL, LSE and LSC were filmed producing each survey item. We used a HD recording device, a greenscreen background, and professional illumination. To ensure consistency, we kept filming conditions, including model's clothes and physical appearance the same across the different recording sessions. Videos were edited offline so they all had a neutral background, the signer could be seen clearly, and each video clip contained the survey question and the possible options. The signed version was always presented together with the written text. Participants answered by clicking on the written response but note that the exact position of each response option had been described in the video, right after the question, and that the video could be repeated on demand. The response options were presented with the question to avoid technical difficulties and/or extra effort due to clicking on one independent video for each answer type.

Results

In order to ensure that respondents had experience in communication settings using face masks, we first carried out one-sample t-tests on the measures of frequency of mask wearing (see Table 3; see also Fig. 1 for mean and distribution of responses). Results revealed that on average the participants and their deaf and hearing friends wore masks most of the time. Their family members wore masks on average some of the time. Finally, on average participants spent around 1 and 3 h a day communicating with people who wear masks. The values for all measures were significantly higher than the lowest possible value, indicating that respondents had participated often in communication settings where face masks were worn. This pattern of results was the same when residents in the UK and Spain were considered separately (all ps < 0.001, all Cohen's d > 2.2). However, independent samples t-tests comparing UK and Spanish residents showed that Spanish residents wore masks more often than UK residents, t (392) = 6.97 p < 0.001. Spanish residents' interlocutors also wore masks more often than UK residents' interlocutors: family members, t(393) = 8.96 p < 0.001, deaf friends, t (207) = 7.23 p < 0.001, and hearing friends, t(251) = 6.33 p < 0.001. Finally, Spanish residents spent more time communicating with people wearing masks than UK residents, t(390) = 5.94 p  < 0.001.

a Mean responses to measures assessing frequency of interactions involving masks and to the study's dependent variables. Mean values are shown for UK and Spanish residents separately, the grey bar in the background corresponds to the total average. b The distribution of responses to the same measures, a violin plot rather than a pie chart has been used for those measures that comprise continuous values

Then we carried out similar one-sample t-tests on the study-dependent variables (except for the wellbeing measure for which we did not have an appropriate standardised value to test against since it has not been validated in this population before). The results shown in Table 3 and in Fig. 1 indicate that on average, respondents thought that communication was " very difficult" in general and in professional settings, and " difficult" in informal social settings. They thought they had missed " a lot of information" in these interactions; they have felt disconnected from society " a good bit of the time". On average, respondents thought that when they were experiencing difficulties in communication, people wearing masks engaged in alternative ways of communication " a little". Finally, respondents thought that clear window masks help to solve communication problems " a moderate amount", while transparent face shields help " a lot". The values for all measures were significantly higher than the lowest possible value, indicating that respondents had significantly experienced communication difficulties, lack of information, and disconnection from society and at the same time, some efforts from others to communicate in alternative ways as well as the benefits of seeing their interlocutor's lip patterns. This pattern of results was the same when residents in the UK and Spain were considered separately (all ps < 0.001, all Cohen's d  > 1.5).

Table 3 Average values and one sample t-tests for frequency of mask use and dependent variables

Heatmap showing the correlation between the different measures. Darker red colours represent a larger negative correlation while darker purple show a larger positive correlation

To study to what extent country of residence (− 1 = Spain, 1 = UK), level of deafness − 1 = HoH and 1 = deaf), onset of deafness (− 1 = late, 1 = early), knowledge of sign language (− 1 = non-signer, 1 = signer), and lipreading fluency (− 1 = non-fluent, 1 = fluent) predicted (A) experienced difficulty communicating with people wearing masks, (B) perceived loss of information and wellbeing and (C) opinion on ways to improve communication, we conducted a series of hierarchical regression analyses with the mentioned predictors and each of the dependent measures of interest. In the hierarchical regression the first step contained the main effects, successive steps (2 to 5) included all possible 2-way, 3-way, 4-way and 5-way interactions between predictors. There were no 4-way nor 5-way interactions ( ps > 0.067), therefore we limit reporting to the highest-order significant interactions in Tables 4, 5, and 6 (the remaining statistics are shown in the Additional file 1). Significant interactions were decomposed to test for the simple effects using Aiken et al., ( 1991). For clarity, only the significant simple effects are reported in the text (the remaining statistics are shown in the Additional file 1). Figure 2 shows the correlations between the different predictors and outcome measures. Weak to moderate significant correlations can be observed between our predictors, indicating some degree of shared variance. For example, respondents with early-onset deafness also tended to be signers as well as deaf (as opposed of HoH). Deaf respondents also tended to be signers (as opposed to not knowing SL). Those who reported knowing sign language (signers) also reported being fluent lipreaders. Significant correlations can also be observed between the three different measures of difficulty communicating with others who wear masks and the rest of the outcome measures.

A. Experienced difficulty communicating.

Table 4 and Fig. 3 summarise the significant effects found in this section.

Overview of significant effects for the three measures of experienced difficulty communicating with people who wear masks: Level by onset of deafness interaction in general as well as professional and informal social situations ( a), main effect of lipreading fluency in the general difficulty measure ( b) and country of residence by level of deafness and Knowledge of SL interactions for the informal social settings ( c). Effects that were significant in the simple slopes analysis are coded as follows, *** =  p < .001, ** =  p > .01, * =  p < .05, and +  =  p  < .10

General difficulty communicating with people wearing masks

The main effect of lipreading fluency in the main effects model indicated that fluent lipreaders found it more difficult than non-fluent lipreaders to communicate with people wearing masks in general.

Overall, people who had become deaf later in life experienced more general difficulty communicating with people who were wearing masks both if they were deaf and if they were HoH. Furthermore, fluent speechreaders, particularly in the UK, struggled to a greater extent.

Difficulty communicating with people who wear masks in professional settings

The main effect of country of residence in the main effects-only model indicated that UK residents found more difficult than Spanish residents to communicate with people wearing masks in professional settings.

The single slope analyses of the significant interactions on the 2-way and 3-way models showed significant simple effects only for the lipreading fluency by country of residence interaction in the 3-way interaction model (all other ps > 0.1). Specifically, for fluent lipreaders UK residents (1) perceived communicating with people using masks in professional settings more difficult than Spanish residents (− 1), b = 0.154, t(366) = 2.119, p = 0.035, 95% CI 0.008, 0.222], this was not significant for non-fluent lipreaders ( p  > 0.05).

Overall, people in the UK, particularly fluent lipreaders, found it more difficult to communicate with people wearing masks in professional settings than people living in Spain but there were no other significant differences.

Difficulty communicating with people wearing masks in informal social situations

The significant effects in the main effects only model showed that early-onset deaf people experienced less difficulty than people who became deaf later in life, signers experienced less difficulty than non-signers, and fluent lipreaders experienced more difficulty than non-fluent lipreaders.

The simple slope analyses of the level of deafness by onset of deafness interaction in the 2-way interaction model showed that deaf people who became deaf early in life experienced less difficulty than people who became deaf later in life, b = − 0.368, t(356) =  − 3.719, p < 0.001, 95% CI − 0.702, − 0.216], this was not significant for HoH people ( p > 0.4). In addition, for participants with early onset deafness, deaf participants experienced less difficulty than HoH participants, b = − 0.193, t(356) =  − 2.241, p = 0.026, 95% CI − 0.467, − 0.030]. The opposite pattern was found for late deafness onset people, HoH people experienced more difficulty than deaf people, b = 0.232, t(356) = 2.462, p  = 0.014, 95% CI 0.060, 0.537].

Overall, people who became deaf later in life, especially the HoH people, and fluent lipreaders experienced more difficulty communicating with people wearing masks in informal social situations. Furthermore, people in the UK reported communication with people using masks in informal social situations more difficult than Spanish residents. Indeed, Spanish signers reported less difficulties in communication in informal social situations.

B. Loss of information and wellbeing

Table 5 and Fig. 4 summarise the significant effects found for Amount of information missed, feeling of disconnection from society, and general wellbeing.

Overview of significant effects for the three measures of perceived loss of information and wellbeing: amount of information missed ( a), feeling of disconnection from society ( b) and general wellbeing: quality of life ( c). Effects that were significant in the simple slopes analysis are coded as follows, *** =  p < .001, ** =  p > .01, * =  p < .05, and +  =  p  < .1

Amount of information missed

The significant effects in the main effects only model showed that HoH people (− 1) missed less information that deaf people (1; p = 0.026), and signers (1) tend to miss more information than non-signers (− 1; p  = 0.054).

Overall, signers and deaf, specifically late-onset deaf people, reported to have missed more information.

Emotional wellbeing: feeling of being disconnected from society

The main effect of deafness in the 2-way and the 3-way interaction model showed that deaf people (1) felt more disconnected from society than HoH people (− 1; p  = 0.009).

The simple slope analyses of the 3-way interaction between level of deafness, onset of deafness, and knowledge of SL showed that none of the simple effects reached significance (all p s > 0.5).

Overall, deaf people reported feeling more disconnected from society. However, there is a trend for Spanish signers to feel less disconnected from society than non-signers.

General wellbeing: quality of life

Significant effects in the main effects-only model revealed that HoH people reported worst wellbeing than deaf people ( p = 0.018), signers reported lower wellbeing than non-signers ( p = 0.010), and non-fluent lipreaders reported lower wellbeing than fluent lipreaders ( p  = 0.038).

The simple slope analyses of the country of residence by level of deafness interaction in the 3-way interaction model showed no significant simple effects (all p s = 0.07).

Overall, HoH people, deaf people with late-onset deafness, non-fluent lipreaders, and signers reported the worst general wellbeing.

C. Ways to improve communication

Table 6 and Fig. 5 summarise the significant effects found for the outcome variables included in this section.

Overview of significant effects for the three measures on respondent's opinion on ways to improve communication: other's efforts to engage in alternative communication such as gesturing or writing ( a), efficacy of face masks with a clear window ( b), and efficacy of transparent face shields ( c). Effects that were significant in the simple slopes analysis are coded as follows, *** =  p < .001, ** =  p > .01, * =  p < .05, and +  =  p  < .1

Perceived effort from others to improve communication

Significant effects in the main effects-only model revealed that deaf people reported that others have made more efforts to communicate with them while wearing a mask than HoH people ( p = 0.016). Residents in the UK had experienced that other people had done fewer extra efforts to communicate with them ( p  = 0.009).

Overall, deaf people, and Spanish residents reported having observed more attempts by others to engage in alternative ways of communication such as writing or gesturing.

Perceived efficacy of transparent or clear window masks to facilitate communication

Significant effects in the main effects-only model revealed that signers (1) perceived clear window masks as less useful than non-signers (− 1; p = 0.003), and fluent lipreaders (1) thought that clear windows masks were more useful than non-fluent lipreaders (− 1; p  = 0.02).

There were no other significant simple effects for the significant interaction in the 3-way model (all p s > 0.174).

Overall, non-signers and fluent lipreaders found face coverings with a clear window more useful.

Perceived efficacy of transparent face shields to facilitate communication

Significant effects in the main effects-only model revealed that HoH people (− 1) considered face shields as less helpful to facilitate communication than deaf people (1; p = 0.049). Fluent lipreaders (1) valued the transparent face shields as more positive than less fluent lipreaders (− 1; p  = 0.001).

Overall, deaf people and fluent lipreaders found transparent face shields more useful.

Discussion

The present study was designed to explore the communication difficulties experienced by deaf and HoH people due to the use of face coverings in the current COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, we studied which factors predicted the amount of information they had missed since the start of the pandemic as well as their emotional and general wellbeing. Finally, we explored deaf and HoH people's views on three different ways in which communication could be improved: alternative ways of communicating, use of face masks with a clear window, and use of transparent face shields. We included level and onset of deafness, knowledge of SL, self-assessed speechreading fluency, and country of residence as predictors in all the analyses.

By focusing on accessibility, the present study addresses important limitations present in prior research. We increased accessibility by releasing the same survey questions not only in written English and Spanish but also in three different sign languages (BSL, LSE, and LSC). This was done to achieve a better representation of the deaf population, including deaf/HoH people whose first language is one of the three studied sign languages. Providing all participants with the option of seeing the survey items in their natural language has the added benefit of including signers that have little access to written language. This is important given that a majority of deaf people find reading a challenging task, with most leaving school having achieved a reading age of about 8 th grade at the most (e.g. Sánchez & García-Rodicio, 2006; Traxler, 2000) or even lower (Domínguez & Alegria, 2010). These signers with lower reading skills are likely to be substantially underrepresented in surveys that are delivered only in writing. Indeed, approximately one third of our respondents accessed the SL version despite personal costs to them such as taking longer to complete, requiring more bandwidth, and possibly needing a larger device to watch the videos comfortably. This high number of deaf people completing the signed version highlights the importance of dedicating more resources (i.e. funds and time necessary to create adequate SL clips) so sign language is used as a main language in research involving deaf people.

Our results show that the deaf people who answered this survey, as well as their relatives and friends, engaged in health protection behaviours such as mask wearing despite communication challenges. This is likely to have contributed to the small percentage of participants (5.3% across both countries) who had had confirmed or suspected COVID-19 at the time of testing. We found that communication with people who wear masks was difficult for all participants in all situations. Overall respondents felt that they had missed a lot of information in their day-to-day interactions with people. They have also felt significantly more disconnected from society than before. Nonetheless, in general, responses show that deaf and HoH people appreciate that others have made some efforts to communicate in some other way such as gesturing or writing. They also valued positively the use of transparent face coverings. In the rest of this section, we summarise and discuss the key findings separately in each of the three areas of interest: communication difficulties, loss of information and wellbeing, and ways to improve communication.

Difficulties communicating with people who wear face masks

When examining the general communication difficulties, our findings revealed a key role of speechreading fluency predicting level of difficulty, particularly for UK residents. Overall, fluent speechreaders struggled more than non-fluent speechreaders. This result is not surprising, as it reflects that deaf and HoH people heavily rely on their interlocutor's lip movements during face-to-face interactions (Atcherson et al., 2017; Moberly et al., 2020; Naylor et al., 2020; Saunders et al., 2021; Trecca et al., 2020), with those who consider themselves fluent speechreaders more likely to rely more on lip patterns than those who are not very fluent.

The analysis examining difficulty of communication when others use mask in professional settings showed a clear effect of country of residence, with UK residents struggling more than Spanish residents. As a reminder, Spanish respondents had spent significantly more time interacting with people wearing masks (independent samples t-test: t(390) = 5.94, p  < 0.001). Interestingly, for informal social communication the decrease in difficulty experienced by Spanish residents was specific to HoH (vs. deaf) people and to signers (vs. non-signers).

There are several possible explanations for these effects. One possibility is that people in Spain (deaf and hearing) were making a greater effort to communicate widely because mask-wearing was more ubiquitous, and hence it was hindering communication at some level for everyone. Likewise, the stricter restrictions around mask wearing in Spain (e.g. fewer exceptions were allowed and authorities ensuring that someone not wearing a mask carried an official exemption certificate) could contribute to a more general awareness that others might need additional support in the communication process. This interpretation is supported by the fact that the interlocutors of Spanish residents made more efforts in communicating using gesturing, writing, or some other creative alternatives (see the "ways to improve communication" section in results and below), which could have contributed to decrease the perception that communication was difficult.

A second possibility is that in Spain people generally use more alternative ways of visual communication such as gesture, not just as an increased level of awareness after COVID-19 but as a cultural trait (see Van Deusen Phillips, 2008). Southern Europeans (e.g. Italians, Spaniards, Greeks) are often considered to be immersed in gesture rich cultures (for discussion of cross-cultural differences in gestures see Kendon, 2004; Kita, 2009). For example, Italian children 2 years old and younger used more gestures referring to objects, people or locations (i.e. representational gestures) than American children. The Italian children also used these representational gestures more frequently than the American children (Iverson et al., 2008). American children relied more on their larger speech vocabulary, pointing, and more conventional gestures (e.g. Hi, Yes, All-gone). These differences observed between Italian and American children, could be parallel between Spanish and UK people. This interpretation is consistent with the trend in the general difficulty measure for speechreading fluency to be a stronger predictor of difficulties for UK than for Spanish residents. Within this assumption, a richer and more varied representational gesture inventory could be more helpful when speechreading is not possible. Indeed, gestures and facial expressions have been shown to enhance speech understanding at different levels of noise-vocoding (Drijvers & Özyürek, 2017).

The fact that Spanish signers experienced less difficulty communicating with people who wear masks in informal social settings further supports the idea that visual communication that does not rely primarily on speechreading has a beneficial effect such that facilitates communication.

A third possibility is that other cultural differences such as collectivism contribute to these dissimilarities between UK and Spanish residents' perceived difficulty. People in collectivistic cultures tend to be part of strong cohesive groups, having closer and more supportive networks (Triandis et al., 1988). For example, Goodwin and Hernandez Plaza ( 2000) found that Spanish people were more collectivistic than people in the UK. Furthermore, they found that the collectivism predicted Spanish residents perceived that they had received global support both in general and after an event. It is possible that, because Spain is a more collectivistic society than the UK, Spanish people expect and report receiving more social support to overcome communication difficulties. It is also possible that people disadvantaged by communication barriers in the UK simply expect more social support than what they receive. Their higher scores in perceived difficulty could reflect their violated expectations, as violated expectations have been associated with greater difficulty experienced across different contexts (e.g. Belsky, 1985; Burgoon, 1993; Gao, 2020; Violanti, 2020). Previous research has shown that in countries with a lower Power Distance Index (PDI; for comparison see Insights, 2021) such as the UK when compared to Spain, people align more with the belief that inequalities should be minimised and therefore expect more support to minimise them. More research is needed to further understand whether these differences are related to having developed more general awareness of the need to find alternative ways to communicate, or rather, to more general cultural factors such as more extensive use of gestures, or different expectations of how much support the society as a whole should provide.

Regardless of the ultimate cause of the perceived difficulty, our findings indicate that to decrease communication difficulties when wearing masks, we can encourage using sign language when possible and investing effort in alternative visual communication when signing is not possible (for similar recommendation see e.g. Mheidly et al., 2020; Saunders et al., 2021; Sanjeev et al., 2021). Sanjeev et al. ( 2021) highlighted the advantages (e.g. effective communication) of using sign language in emergency departments, intensive care units, and operating rooms in hospitals, particularly before performing high-risk procedures.

Another compelling finding is that deaf people with late-onset deafness were the group experiencing more difficulties across the board, as indicated by the interactions between onset and degree of deafness. There were two key results that supported this statement. First, people with late-onset deafness experienced more difficulty in general if they were deaf than if they were HoH. This could reflect the fact that late-onset HoH people are still able to use some auditory information in their interactions which could help effective communication to some degree and make the process less difficult. Despite the reduction in quality of the speech signal due to the masks (Atcherson et al., 2017; Trecca et al., 2020), they could still use this degraded auditory information and hence reduce their perception of difficulty. Late-onset deaf people would depend exclusively on speechreading, therefore struggling more when masks are used. Second, deaf people who became deaf later in life experienced more difficulty communicating than deaf people with early-onset deafness, particularly in informal social situations. This increased difficulty for late-onset deaf people indicates that they depend on speechreading more than early-onset deaf people, who are likely to have developed communication strategies involving a wider range of visual information. For example, late-onset deaf people are less likely to learn sign language and consequently less likely to develop a social network around signing ( for discussion about deafhood, how the creation of deaf identity leads to the use of SL and the composition of signing communities see e.g. Hauser et al., 2010; Padden et al., 2009). Indeed, while 87.5% of our early-onset participants were signers, only 36% of the late-onset respondents knew a SL. Other factors different from signing status could explain to a greater extent why late-onset deaf people experience more difficulties. Individuals who became deaf later in life could be more affected by the feelings of shame and the stigma associated with deafness perceived as a disability (Jones, 2002). On the contrary, deaf/HoH people who belong to a deaf community (e.g. early-onset deaf people immersed in deaf culture), are likely to consider deafness as an integral part of their identity and be less influenced by stigma (Bauman & Murray, 2014; Fleischer et al., 2016). More research is needed to investigate whether a stronger deaf identity and/or less stigma results in early-onset deaf people identifying more as deaf when interacting with people, and perhaps changing the communication dynamics. In summary, we propose that late-onset deaf people are less likely to benefit from a social network of people who sign and form a perception of deafness as part of naturally occurring diversity rather than as a disability that causes shame. Both, the lack of social network of signers and the negative perception of deafness, could contribute to more difficult communication.

Loss of information and wellbeing

The findings discussed so far identified fluent speechreaders and late-onset deaf people as the groups who found communication with masks more difficult. Additionally, we found that some signers (Spanish) reported communication with people who wear masks being less difficult. However, when we explored the possible detrimental consequences of communication using face masks on important information missed and wellbeing, the data did not completely align with this pattern. In agreement with the difficulty measures, late-onset deaf people had lower general wellbeing scores. However, all deaf people, including both late- and early-onset, reported having missed more information due to the use of face masks in their interactions with people and feeling more disconnected from society. These results indicate that it is the degree of deafness, rather than the onset, that bears a heavier weight on loss of information while communicating with face coverings.

Signers reported having missed a substantial amount of information in face-to-face interactions where the interlocutor wore a mask. Signers also reported lower general wellbeing. However, the group of Spanish signers felt less disconnected from society. This finding might be related to their informal social interactions using SL and to an increase in accessible signed material during the pandemic. Indeed, deaf organisations and individuals increased their production of signed resources. For example, the Spanish national confederation of deaf people (Confederacion Estatal de personas sordas: CNSE), published over one hundred COVID-19 related videos in LSE between January 2020 and July 2021. Finally, many deaf individuals offered signed resources aimed to keep signers both informed and entertained while restrictions on face-to-face meetings were in place. Many of these individual webpages were extremely popular. For example, the webpage https://encasa.excepcionales.es/ received over 10,000 visits between March and December 2020. The sudden increase in signed resources from the deaf communities could have resulted in a reduced feeling of disconnection from society. However, this does not explain differences between Spanish and UK signers, because similar increases in the signed resources available were observed in the UK. For example, deaf schools (e.g. Frank Barnes or Blanche Nevile) developed numerous resources for children. The Royal Association for Deaf people (RAD) and organisations such as Sign Health or Deaf Station regularly provided updates about the news, COVID-19 related information, and so on. More research is needed to fully understand the differences between the two countries. It is possible that the Spanish society, being more collectivistic (Goodwin & Hernandez Plaza, 2000) than UK's society, behaved more pro-socially (for further support of this argument see e.g. Feygina & Henry, 2015), reducing the feeling of disconnection from society.

Ways to improve communication

Regarding the ways in which communication can be improved while staying safe through the use of masks, we found the following key results:

First, deaf people reported more alternative efforts of their interlocutors to communicate, for example writing or gesturing, than HoH people. Second, Spanish residents also reported that others had made more extra efforts to communicate than UK residents. As discussed at length above there are two possible explanations for differences between the two countries. One is that cultural differences in the type of gesture and non-verbal communication result on Spanish people being more used to frequent use of meaningful gesturing. Another possibility is cultural differences in collectivism/individualism are related to increased prosocial behaviour in the more collectivist Spanish society. Further research is needed to identify the specific contribution of these factors.

Third, fluent speechreaders found useful both masks with a transparent (clear) window and completely transparent face-shields. This result is congruent with the wealth of research showing that people (both deaf and hearing) pay close attention to the mouth when trying to understand speech, particularly when auditory perception becomes difficult (e.g. perception in noise, vocoded speech, or when listening to an unfamiliar language, see e.g. Banks et al., 2021; Blackburn et al., 2019; Lusk & Mitchel, 2016; Worster et al., 2018).

Fourth, deaf people, including signers and non-signers, found transparent face shields useful. It is possible that HoH people do not find transparent face shields as useful because of the sound attenuation, which is greater for clear masks and transparent face shields than for surgical masks.2 The harder materials of the face shields could hinder their residual hearing more than the clear face masks. However, further research specifically aimed to test this hypothesis is needed before drawing conclusions. Interestingly, it was non-signers who found clear window face masks more useful than signers, suggesting that for non-signers just seeing the lips is useful while signers might appreciate more seeing the whole facial expression. However, it is well-know that there are issues regarding cost, manufacturing, and safety of completely transparent face coverings. We propose that when they are used to facilitate communication with signers, other factors such as ventilation and increased social distancing are put in place to ensure safety.

The limitations of this study include the longer length of the survey due to the exploratory nature of this study. A shorter survey could have attracted higher participation. The process of translation to multiple SL, video editing, and familiarisation with releasing surveys using video content delayed the release of the survey or perhaps early experiences were not completely captured in this work. It is worth to note that the increased accessibility due to the release in several sign languages, as well as the recruitment through the deaf communities' channels, meant that the proportion of signers who participated in this study might not be representative of the proportion of signers in the general population. This is not a limitation per se, as we aimed to over-recruit from this population. Finally, the fact that the survey was online made it accessible internationally and easy to participate at any time convenient. However, due to this online nature, some older people as well as deaf people with lower technological literacy are likely to be unrepresented. Further research would need to be conducted on those groups, perhaps with an interviewer that can facilitate the interaction with the survey. Similarly, it is possible that some deaf COVID-19 patients did not take part in this study due to their poor health. It is also possible that deaf people who contracted COVID-19 and did not participate in the present study were not strong mask users. In light of the present results, further research is needed to completely disentangle the effects of mask use frequency from other factors, including the amount of time they spent communicating in SL in comparison with spoken language, SL proficiency, as well as the other possible factors discussed above.

Conclusions

The complex pattern of results found here highlights the importance of acknowledging the diversity of deaf/HoH people when studying the impact of community-wide use of face masks. Rather than finding a solution that fits all deaf/HoH people, solutions and interventions should be tailored to different experiences due to onset and level of deafness, signing status, and the specific person's speechreading fluency. We also found that the effects of mask-wearing frequency might be modulated by cultural factors such as generalised use of gesturing, pro-social behaviour (e.g. generalised willingness to use gestures or other non-verbal communication), or people's perception of how much power they hold in society. Finally, our findings revealed that clear masks are more useful than standard masks for everyone. However, seeing the lip patterns is not all that there is. On the one hand, seeing the whole face and expression is important for some deaf/HoH people. On the other hand, communication partners using sign language, gestures, and other ways of non-verbal communication can help many deaf/HoH people.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated and analysed during the current study, as well as the regression analyses code, are available in the OSF repository https://osf.io/5rtpj/?view_only=374488bf57be40698b4c14e80137ff32.

Notes

1. Speechreading refers to comprehension of speech through vision. Lipreading is a main component of speechreading and a highly familiar term. The present study used the term lipreading in the survey questions to maximise understanding by a heterogeneous pool of respondents. Therefore, we used the label lipreading fluency for the related dependent measure for precision. However, throughout the introduction and discussion we used the term speechreading to acknowledge the fact that deaf people usually take cues from the whole face rather than just the lips.

2. This assumes that completely transparent face coverings are worn on their own.

Abbreviations

HoH:

Hard of hearing

SL:

Sign language

BSL:

British Sign Language

LSE:

Lengua de Signos Española

LSC:

Llengua de Signes Catalana

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the Royal Association for Deaf people (RAD) for their collaboration and support. We would also like to thank all the deaf respondents that gave up their time. Finally, we would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful comments and suggestions that improved the quality of this paper.

Funding

The present research was funded by the British Academy 2020 Special Research Awards: Covid-19 scheme (grant number COV19\200352) awarded to Eva Gutierrez-Sigut, Katherine Rowley, María Jesús Pardo-Guijarro and Emilio Ferreiro Lago.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

1. Department of Psychology, University of Essex, Wivenhoe Park, Colchester, CO4 3SQ, UK

Eva Gutierrez-Sigut, Veronica M. Lamarche & Laura Goldberg

2. DCAL Research Centre, University College London, London, UK

Eva Gutierrez-Sigut & Katherine Rowley

3. Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Cuenca, Spain

Emilio Ferreiro Lago & María Jesús Pardo-Guijarro

4. University Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain

Ixone Saenz, Santiago Frigola & Delfina Aliaga

5. Barcelona, Spain

Berta Frigola

Contributions

EG-S: conceptualisation, materials preparation, data collection, analysis, writing; VL: conceptualisation, analysis, writing; KR: Conceptualisation, data collection, writing; EFL: conceptualisation, materials preparation, data collection, writing; MJP-G: conceptualisation, materials preparation, data collection, writing; IS: materials preparation, data collection, analysis; BF: materials preparation, data collection; SF: materials preparation, data collection; DA: materials preparation, data collection; LG: materials preparation, data collection. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eva Gutierrez-Sigut.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by University of Essex Science and Health Ethics Sub-committee (ETH2021-0196).

Consent for publication

The manuscript does not contain personal data.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Reprints and permissions

About this article

Download citation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How do face masks impact communication amongst deaf/HoH people? - Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Face coverings have been key in reducing the spread of COVID-19. At the same time, they have hindered interpersonal communication, particularly for those who rely on speechreading to aid communication. The available research indicated that deaf/hard of hearing (HoH) people experienced great difficulty communicating with people wearing masks and negative effects on wellbeing.

# data[].attributes.headline
Masks in Covid greatly affected members of the Deaf community

# data[].attributes.subject
Masks in Covid greatly affected members of the Deaf community

# data[].attributes.body
"Masks saw more than 90% of deaf people struggle to communicate during pandemic." https://www.theclearmask.com/updates/10/19/masks-saw-more-than-90-percent-of-deaf-people-struggle-to-communicate-during-pandemic-study-finds

# data[].attributes.body
At best and assuming you know the context of what is being talked about, a person can understand less than 30% of lip reading.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Watch: What It’s Like to Read Lips | Short Film Showcase

# data[].attributes.body
deaf: individuals who tend to rely on auditory assistance devices, prefer to use spoken language, and tend to socialize more often with hearing people

Deaf: members of Deaf culture. These people use sign language and share similar beliefs, values, customs and experiences. They often prefer to socialize with culturally Deaf people.

# data[].attributes.headline
Why not called "Differently-abled"? Why "Disabled"? 

# data[].attributes.subject
Why not called "Differently-abled"? Why "Disabled"? 

# data[].attributes.headline
Deaf History is never mentioned in hearing classrooms, why is that?

# data[].attributes.subject
Deaf History is never mentioned in hearing classrooms, why is that?

# data[].attributes.body
1880 International Congress of the Education of the Deaf in Milan, only one out of 164 participants was deaf. The vote at the conference to endorse speech over sign language was a landslide.

# data[].attributes.headline
Deaf Art: "The Periodic Table of Hate and Intolerance" by Amy Cohen Efron

# data[].attributes.subject
Deaf Art: "The Periodic Table of Hate and Intolerance" by Amy Cohen Efron

# data[].attributes.body
https://deaf-art.org/profiles/amy-cohen-efron/

https://aefronarts.com/gallery/

# data[].attributes.headline
"Celebration of Hands" by Betty G Miller

# data[].attributes.subject
"Celebration of Hands" by Betty G Miller

# data[].attributes.headline
Deaf Art: "Mechanical Ear" by Chuck Baird

# data[].attributes.subject
Deaf Art: "Mechanical Ear" by Chuck Baird

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.startasl.com/deaf-culture-art-and-literature/

# data[].attributes.body
https://deafcuture.blogspot.com/2015/07/7.html

# data[].attributes.body
Mabel Bell, Deaf wife of Alexander Graham Bell.

Created device for his wife to be able to hear? This became the telephone

Did not allow Deaf people to marry other Deaf people

Hate crimes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The great project of Alexander Graham Bell's life was, perhaps surprisingly, not the telephone.

He focused much of his life on the education of deaf people, funded by his earnings from his famous invention.

He was an early pioneer of oralism, a belief that all deaf people should learn to communicate by lip-reading and speaking, rather than with sign language. "To ask the value of speech is like asking the value of life," he is credited as saying.

But not all deaf people can learn to speak, or believe they should be compelled to do so. According to author Katie Booth, the harm of oralism still reverberates.

"I can't even begin to express the deep, deep, deep trauma that so many deaf people still carry from those educations," Booth, author of The Invention of Miracles: Language, Power and Alexander Graham Bell's Quest to End Deafness, told Ideas. Booth's book, released earlier this spring, compiles years of her research into Bell's letters and other archival material, according to publisher Simon & Schuster.

While Bell's precise methods are no longer in use, critics say the philosophy of oralism - that speech is inherently better than sign language - still has a harmful ripple effect to this day.

Teaching or 'assimilation'

Bell's mother Eliza was born with hearing, but became deaf later in her life.

"I think Bell saw the way she was able to operate in the world. And just first of all assumed all deaf people should be able to do that. And I think maybe he glamorized it a little," Booth said.

Bell developed a method of teaching speech to deaf people, and particularly deaf children, called visible speech. It was based on a phonetic representation of the alphabet developed by his father, who was an elocutionist - something akin to a speech therapist.

"He would start by just teaching them about their mouths: This is your tongue. This is your soft palate. This is how you say ' puh,'' said Booth, who has normal hearing.

"He basically sought to make all of these invisible sounds visible, or felt in some way."

Bell would work at the Boston School for Deaf Mutes, teaching visible speech to students as well as teachers to promote and spread the practice. At the same time, oralism was growing in popularity among deaf educators.

"The goal was that deaf people could move through the hearing world without anyone knowing they were deaf. And by doing that, ideally, they would be able to have access to all sorts of hearing privilege," said Booth.

"Of course, today we would call that assimilation."

Bell was also interested in the genealogy of deaf people. In a 1884 paper titled Memoir upon the Formation of a Deaf Variety of the Human Race, he raised concerns about deaf people intermarrying lest it lead to increased prevalence of deafness, or what he referred to as "a defective race of human beings."

Jim Grosvenor Watson, Bell's great-great-grandson and auditory-verbal therapist who works in the field of deaf education today, accused Booth of "cherry picking" from historical documents to reinforce theories that have been circulated about Bell for years.

"What she's done in this book is she's created a portrait of somebody that's based on all of these opinions that are based on myths that have been propagated by the deaf community that are not true," he told CBC Radio.

He pointed to an FAQ page by the Alexander and Mabel Bell Legacy Foundation specifically dedicated to refuting "myths and rumours," including whether Bell was opposed to sign language or deaf people intermarrying.
Watch this ASL video of Veronica Simmonds' documentary, Unsound: The Legacy of Alexander Graham Bell, listen above orread the transcript.

'They thought he was the devil'

One "unspoken part" of oralism, according to Booth, was that while deaf and hard of hearing students were learning spoken language, the use of sign language was to be discouraged - even punished.

"It was the Victorian era. The body was something to be controlled and restrained. And so sign language just seemed, well, just out of control," she said.

Dan Foley, who attended an oralism school in Massachusetts as a child, says he experienced that bias.

"They'd make me sit on my hands. I'd be forced to try to speak. And if I did try to sign, I would be punished - [if I was] just waving like, 'Hello' or something like that, or pointing like, 'Over there' or 'What's that?' or something," he told Ideas, speaking in ASL through an interpreter.

While most of his peers had hearing impairments, he was fully deaf - and found it difficult to learn while teachers spoke aloud to the class, sometimes with their backs facing the students.

Foley described feeling "culture shocked" after he transferred to a school that allowed signing and had deaf teachers among the staff. Where his education stalled at the oralism school, it flourished in a signing environment.

But the change also sparked a "genuine anger" in him at the difficulty he endured in the oralism school.

"At the deaf school in the sign language environment, they hated him," he said of Bell.

"They thought he was the devil."

Watson says modern speech-oriented deaf education practices, such as auditory verbal therapy, are a far cry from the visible speech methods Bell used in the 19th century.

He doesn't teach sign language, but also doesn't discourage or punish the use of signing.

"We're offering the parents a choice ... of using listening and spoken language, teaching your children through their hearing how to talk - or you can teach them through sign language," he said.

"If you want the choice for signing, go get that. But we're not the ones to do that for you."

'A terrible legacy'

Early into his career, Bell's star student was a girl named Mabel Hubbard, who would later become his wife. Thanks to Bell's teaching method, Booth says, Hubbard was able to "function quite well" in society.

"He [Bell] kind of thought that since she did it, anyone could do it," said Booth, who points out that Mabel was not born deaf, but lost her hearing after scarlet fever as a child.

The problem, however, was that not every deaf person can learn to lip read, and not every deaf person can learn to speak.

"What A.G. Bell did not understand or realize was that he hadn't met enough deaf people," said Joanne Weber, a researcher at the University of Alberta and Canada Research Chair in deaf education.

"But because he invented the telephone, and because he was a brilliant man, and because hearing people are so audio-centric, of course they supported A.G. Bell in his push toward oralism."

Weber has hearing loss in both her ears. But with the help of a hearing aid, she's able to understand language fairly well in her left ear.

"But the problem is not everybody has the one ear that I have. And no matter what you do with them, they cannot learn to speak. And so, with this population, there's always been an attitude of, oh well, they're just the unfortunate. They just didn't work hard enough. They didn't have enough intelligence....

"That's the legacy that A.G. Bell left us with. And it's a terrible legacy."

Deaf education today

Decisions about whether to teach a deaf child spoken or signing language can be made much earlier in the child's life than in Bell's era. Babies have their hearing tested within their first month. Parents may then choose whether to pursue cochlear implants, a type of hearing aid installed in the inner ear.

These implants do not guarantee a child will hear. Sometimes, at best, they can allow the child to understand 80 per cent of the sounds around them - and even then, it will take extensive training to help them interpret spoken language.

Watson said speech therapy aided by these implants are a better first option over sign language in early life, pointing to a 2017 study in the journal Pediatrics that followed two groups of deaf and hard of hearing young children with cochlear implants.

The group that learned spoken language with the aid of the implants, he said, had not only greater speech recognition and skill with spoken language, but also reading, compared to the group who solely used sign language.

Weber dismisses arguments for an either/or approach, arguing that both spoken and sign language can be important tools in helping deaf children's "cognition, emotional and social development."

"The brain does not care, 'Is the language coming through the tongue?' or, 'Is the language coming through the hand?'" she said.

Booth says that Bell's legacy of deaf education instead left deaf people to advocate for themselves in a hearing society that too often leaves them behind.

"Our world would be different for deaf people if he redirected his energy towards changing hearing people instead of deaf people," she said.

"What's even more important is to not put a burden on deaf people in terms of them getting into the hearing world."
Written by Jonathan Ore. The documentary Unsound: The Legacy of Alexander Graham Bell was produced by Veronica Simmonds.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Alexander Graham Bell's oralist mission still harms deaf and hard of hearing people, say critics | CBC Radio

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Alexander Graham Bell's true passion, and the project he focused on his entire life and funded with his earnings from the telephone, was the education of deaf people. But according to author Katie Booth, the harm of oralism still reverberates today.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Find a Deaf Church near you! Deaf Church Where helps you find Deaf Churches, Deaf Bible study groups, and hearing churches that offer sign language interpretation.

# data[].attributes.body
There are only two Deaf schools in Georgia: The Atlanta Area School for the Deaf (in Atlanta) and the Georgia School for the Deaf (in NW). People who attend these schools often have 5 hour commutes on public transportation and there are no residential options available at the moment.

https://www.gadoe.org/Curriculum-Instruction-and-Assessment/State-Schools/Pages/aasd.aspx

# data[].attributes.body
Notes on google document from Brian Leffler's interview. Brian is a professor here at UGA and also on many committees such as National Association of the Deaf, Georgia Center of Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Deaf and Blind Access in the South, Deaf Access to quality living, and Georgia Mentor Programs. He helped begin ASL Dawgs, the ASL club on campus!

# data[].attributes.body
See google document for Interview notes with Joseph, who is a Deaf cochlear implant user!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Over 11,000,000 people in the United States are deaf or experience some sort of hearing loss, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. While the Deaf and hard-of-hearing community make up a substantial part of the nation's population, they often meet inequitable access to important systems such as healthcare, and face daily challenges navigating a society built for hearing individuals.

Despite the challenges, deaf people have made numerous important contributions to American history. Many of these historical figures go unnoticed, something National Deaf History Month aims to change.

The Deaf community, distinguished from the medical diagnosis with a capital "D", is a cultural and linguistic group in which American Sign Language is the main language spoken.

In 1997, the National Association of the Deaf declared March 13 to April 15 Deaf History Month. However, the NAD recently changed the dates to April 1-30, according to its website.

The new dates for Deaf History Month aim to better celebrate the achievements of and raise awareness and support for American Deaf history while ensuring all members of the Deaf community are recognized, especially people of color.

Untold History

Deaf history encompasses the history of deaf people and Deaf culture as it has evolved in the United States.

Brian Leffler, a lecturer in the department of communication sciences and special education at the University of Georgia, has been deaf his whole life. Growing up, he attended both a private school for the deaf and public school. He was not taught about Deaf history at either school, and had little exposure to Deaf culture.

Deaf figures such as Laurent Clerc, who was key in the creation of ASL, and Juliette Gordon Low, the founder of the Girl Scouts of the USA, were left out of the curriculum.

"I wish that Deaf culture and Deaf history would have been taught while I was growing up," Leffler said.

Navigating life as a young deaf person came with challenges, like being accompanied by an adult ASL interpreter for most of the school day. Despite the communication barrier, Leffler made friends and played with hearing children, but dealt with some bullying and misunderstanding from other students. With two hearing parents, he said he wished he had more deaf adults in his life to help guide him through these challenges.

"I internalized that the hearing people had the control and the deaf person was less ... I realized I wanted to see deaf people get in there, get that power," Leffler said.

He said the success of deaf famous figures and representations in media, such as the film "CODA" that recently won an Academy Award for Best Picture, is great progress for the Deaf community. He hopes deaf people continue to have more opportunities and representation.

'Don't pity me'

In a majority hearing world, the experiences and challenges met by Deaf community members can vary from those of a hearing person - but this doesn't mean they're any less capable of success.

For Leffler, the last thing he wants from hearing people is a "pity party."

"I may be deaf, but I am interesting. I'm different, that shouldn't stop you from connecting with me. That's all I want people to do, just connect," Leffler said.

Leffler thinks the similarities deaf and hearing people share should be emphasized rather than the differences to help limit stigmas placed on the Deaf community.

"We are more similar than we are different," Leffler said. "I love being deaf. I don't want to be fixed. I love my job, I want hearing people to understand that I'm not somebody to be pitied."

Katie Tran, a sophomore biology major, wants more openness when talking about the deaf and hard-of-hearing experience.

Tran was born with bilateral hearing loss and wears hearing aids. The aids allow her to hear most speech, but some sound is still distorted. She said most people do not realize she has hearing loss until she brings it up.

"I feel like anything that people may have like a disability, disease or condition, they don't really tell people. I feel like we should just be more open about it. We're all human, and when I tell people they don't really think anything of it," Tran said.

Signing up

Brittney Bateman, a junior science education major, said learning ASL has been a great way for her to better understand the Deaf experience.

Bateman, who is a hearing individual, got involved with the ASL program at UGA last year and had no experience with the language before starting the program. Bateman is now minoring in ASL, and said her first class, taught by Brian Leffler, influenced her passion for sign.

"At first, I was really hesitant about it, because it was an 8 a.m. class that's just silent. I was really worried that I was going to be disengaged because I'm used to hearing things," Bateman said. "But no, it was the exact opposite of that."

Bateman now recommends Leffler's early morning sign language class to other students because of how engaging and immersive the experience was. She also encourages hearing students to get involved with the ASL program, and actively learn more about Deaf culture and the Deaf experience.

"There are things that sign classes open your eyes to and you're like, 'Wow, that's something that hearing society takes for granted,'" she said.

In Athens, ASL clubs and organizations, like Hands In!, help reach the local Deaf community.

Hands In! is a nonprofit community group that produces original theater works in both English and ASL. Its mission is to connect the hearing and Deaf community through promoting accessibility in the arts, according to its website.

Luke Bundrum, a board member of Hands In! alongside Leffler, first got involved with the organization in college, acting in several productions. Bundrum has a cochlear implant, but still has trouble hearing at times. At Hands In! he found a community where ASL was more prevalent, which made it easier for him to communicate.

Bundrum encourages anyone to get involved, no matter their sign language skills. He enjoys the fellowship at Hands In!, which has created a safe space for deaf and hard-of-hearing people.

"Our goal is to make everything accessible for the Deaf and hard-of-hearing community so they can participate and have fun," Bundrum said. "People can communicate easier here than in an only-hearing setting."

Their next production, "'Sign' of the Times," is an open mic-style show with performances featuring deaf, hard-of-hearing and hearing people of all ages sharing their experiences growing up in different decades. It will be held on April 15 at Red Light Cafe in Atlanta.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Deaf History Month shines a light on Deaf community

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In 1997, the National Association of the Deaf declared March 13 to April 15 Deaf History Month. However, the NAD recently changed the dates to April 1-30, according to its

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Hands In! is a 501(c)(3) educational nonprofit based out of Athens, GA. We produce original works in American Sign Language (ASL) such as workshops, classes, and community events with a special interest in theatre and jukebox musicals. All of our shows are fully accessible in American Sign Language, as our shows are visually immersive. Anyone and everyone can enjoy our shows!

To connect communities by promoting accessibility in the arts.

To see an increase in representation in the arts.

CHRISTINE BERNAL PHOTOGRAPHY
(478) 951-5681

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn more about what Hands In! is and the work we are doing!

# data[].attributes.body
UGA Club

# data[].attributes.headline
Unacknowledged Deaf history and discrimination 

# data[].attributes.subject
Unacknowledged Deaf history and discrimination 

# data[].attributes.body
Police brutality and extreme surveillance and punishments

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.aclu.org/news/disability-rights/georgia-imprisoned-deaf-and-disabled

# data[].attributes.headline
Lack of education to hearing individuals

# data[].attributes.subject
Lack of education to hearing individuals

# data[].attributes.body
"over 95% of deaf children are born to hearing parents" and "only 17% of hearing parents can effectively communicate with their deaf child." "Dinner table syndrome" is when Deaf and hard of hearing individuals are continually left out of conversations.

# data[].attributes.body
Medical view versus cultural view

# data[].attributes.body
Prisoners make one audible call, no accommodation for Deaf people.