Brain Research 1789 (2022) 147943

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Brain Research
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/brainres

Perks of blindness: Enhanced verbal memory span in blind over

sighted adults
Karen Arcos a, *, Susanne M. Jaeggi a, b, Emily D. Grossman a
a
Department of Cognitive Science, University of California, Irvine, 3151 Social Sciences Plaza, Irvine, CA 92697-5100, United States
b
School of Education, University of California, Irvine, 3452 Education, Irvine, CA 92697-5500, United States

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Blind individuals commonly use verbal encoding (i.e. text-to-speech) and memory-based strategies (i.e. serial
Visual deprivation recall) for situations in which sighted individuals use vision (i.e. finding items). These strategies may serve to
Blindness train cognitive systems responsible for maintaining and manipulating verbal information. To test this hypothesis,
Socioeconomic status
we investigate whether early visual deprivation is linked to improved verbal short-term and working memory
Verbal short-term memory
Working memory
abilities, and thus might illustrate experience-dependent plasticity in memory systems. We also test whether the
sensory modality for encoding information influences performance. Our data show that blind adults recalled
more items on a verbal short-term memory span task than sighted participants. Furthermore, blind individuals
performed equally well on auditory forward and backward conditions despite the fact that recalling items in
reverse order is more difficult for the general population. However, the benefits of recalling items in reverse
order did not extend to the tactile domain, specifically, a braille version of the short-term memory digit span task
in blind individuals. Furthermore, we observed no differences between blind and sighted individuals on a more
demanding auditory n-back task evaluating more complex working memory processes. We conclude that the
memory benefits associated with blindness might be restricted to auditory-verbal short-term memory and likely
reflect strategy use and practice.

1. Introduction
Individuals who are blind must rely extensively on nonvisual mem­
ory strategies to complete everyday tasks that sighted individuals typi­
cally accomplish visually. When navigating, individuals who are blind
utilize their working memory to orient using auditory cues while, for
example, maintaining conversation (Raz et al., 2007). Those who are
blind also rely on memory for serial order and position to distinguish
items that otherwise can only be distinguished visually (e.g., different
flavored yogurt in identical sealed containers differentiated solely by
labels; Raz et al., 2007).
One hypothesis is that blind individuals’ memory reliance may
provide unique, practice-related benefits, illustrating experience-
dependent plasticity of memory systems. This has been most clearly
demonstrated in the verbal short-term memory domain, particularly
among congenitally or early blind individuals. For example, children
who become blind at birth or early in life recall significantly more items
than sighted individuals, as demonstrated with auditory span tasks (Hull
and Mason, 1995; Swanson and Luxenberg, 2009; Withagen et al.,
2013). Likewise, adults with congenital or early onset blindness exhibit
improved short-term recall for letters, digits, and words (Amedi et al.,
2003; Arcos et al., 2022; Occelli et al., 2017; Pasqualotto et al., 2013;
Raz et al., 2007; Röder et al., 2001).
A number of factors mediate the observed improved memory span in
congenital or early blindness. For example, superior verbal memory
spans are not typically reported for individuals that experience late
onset blindness or those with residual vision (Cohen et al., 2010; Dormal
et al., 2016; Hull and Mason, 1995; Pasqualotto et al., 2013; Smits and
Mommers, 1976). Moreover, evidence indicates blind individuals’
enhanced short-term memory is restricted to the auditory-verbal mo­
dality for highly salient linguistic input. For example, blind and sighted
participants show equivalent performance on recognition memory for
nonverbalizable sounds (Arcos et al., 2022), and the improved span
performance in congenitally blind participants disappears after ac­
counting for perceptual encoding efficiency differences (Rokem and
Ahissar, 2009).
Furthermore, improvements in verbal short-term memory do not
extend to spatial short-term memory. Studies report no group

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: karcos1@uci.edu (K. Arcos), smjaeggi@uci.edu (S.M. Jaeggi), grossman@uci.edu (E.D. Grossman).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2022.147943
Received 5 October 2021; Received in revised form 10 April 2022; Accepted 8 May 2022
Available online 21 May 2022
0006-8993/© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
K. Arcos et al.
differences on spatial memory tasks that require recalling object con­
figurations and paths (Occelli et al., 2017; Vecchi et al., 2004), and
sighted participants commit fewer errors than blind participants on
spatial imagery tasks (Cornoldi et al., 1991). Of note, these latter tasks
require maintaining and manipulating objects’ relative spatial positions,
thus drawing upon executive processes such as working memory,
beyond short-term memory storage demands.
Together these findings are consistent with neurophysiological evi­
dence that congenitally blind individuals’ “visual” cortex is recruited
during linguistic tasks, including verbal memory tasks (Amedi et al.,
2003; Bedny et al., 2011; Hamilton and Pascual-Leone, 1998; Pant et al.,
2020; Röder et al., 2002; Sadato et al., 1996). Whether this reorgani­
zation reflects compensatory mechanisms or inherent pluripotent ca­
pacity of cortex traditionally characterized as unimodal is not yet clear
(Bavelier and Neville, 2002; Bedny, 2017). Age of visual impairment
onset, however, is believed to be a critical variable such that early onset
provides dual opportunity for memory training, both through cortical
plasticity during a critical developmental window, and as a result of
extensively practicing memory strategies daily to promote functional
independence.
Whether experience-dependent training and/or plasticity may also
enhance other executive systems in early blindness has gained
increasing interest. For example, early blind individuals have improved
selective attention relative to sighted individuals as evaluated using
speeded reaction times (Kujala et al., 1997). The blind also show
improved auditory and tactile selective attention, including divided or
sustained attention over long intervals (Collignon et al., 2006; Pigeon
and Marin-Lamellet, 2015). However, evidence of either impaired or
enhanced performance in more complex working memory domains is
much less clear, depending on how working memory processes are
evaluated. For example, when assessing working memory using a
backwards verbal span task, some studies report significantly larger
spans in early blind participants versus sighted (Hull and Mason, 1995;
Occelli et al., 2017; Withagen et al., 2013), while others report no group
differences (Bathelt et al., 2018; Pigeon and Marin-Lamellet, 2015;
Rokem and Ahissar, 2009; Wyver and Markham, 1998). Nonetheless,
blind participants consistently outperform sighted ones in working
memory studies evaluating verbal span with interference tasks to sup­
press rehearsal (Arcos et al., 2022; Cohen et al., 2010; Dormal et al.,
2016). In early and late blind participants, some studies measuring
working memory through n-back tasks report faster reaction times (Pi­
geon and Marin-Lamellet, 2015, 2017), while still others report no dif­
ferences in accuracy between the two samples (Park et al., 2011; Pigeon
and Marin-Lamellet, 2015).
Each task’s differential loading on key aspects of working memory
processes may partly explain these discrepancies. While backward spans
rely largely on maintaining and manipulating items, interference tasks
require participants to suppress task-irrelevant information, and n-back
tasks impose even stronger demands on manipulating information (Kane
et al., 2007). Verbal short-term and working memory also rely on unique
brain systems (as demonstrated in sighted individuals). Verbal storage is
associated with the left inferior frontal gyrus and parietal cortex, while
executive functions involved in verbal working memory are associated
with right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (Jonides et al., 2008). Blind
individuals recruit similar brain regions during verbal working memory,
and additionally recruit occipital cortex (Park et al., 2011). Thus
experience-dependent plasticity may be most pronounced in brain net­
works supporting verbal working memory maintenance processes.
Consideration of the sensory modality used to encode experimental
information during verbal working memory tasks is important. Sighted
adults and children have demonstrated benefits for information encoded
in a preferred modality, as evidenced by improved verbal recall for items
read visually as compared to auditorily (Frick, 1984). Presumably also,
encoding information through non-dominant modalities imposes higher
cognitive loads, i.e., increases task difficulty, which may impair subse­
quent recall (De Jong, 2010). Better recall when visually reading may
2
Brain Research 1789 (2022) 147943
also reflect observers’ ability to actively explore information visually at
a self-guided pace, the tendency for visual information to persist for
longer time durations than auditory information, and differences in how
readily information can be verbalized, which is faster for visual as
compared to auditory information in sighted individuals (Frick, 1984;
Klatzky et al., 2006).
Blind individuals’ preferred sensory modality for encoding verbal
information is not yet clear. Consistently, blind participants are more
efficient when encoding auditory information as compared to the
sighted (Hötting and Röder, 2009; Muchnik et al., 1991; Pigeon and
Marin-Lamellet, 2017; Rokem and Ahissar, 2009). Early blind in­
dividuals also process heard linguistic information more efficiently than
sighted individuals (Röder et al., 2003). Moreover, improved linguistic
processing may transfer to tactile encoding. Sighted individuals make
significantly more errors on verbal working memory n-back tasks when
using raised letters versus visual letters, while blind braille readers
perform equally well when using raised tactile or braille letters (Bliss
et al., 2004). When comparing auditory versus tactile encoding, blind
and braille literate children recalled more words encoded in braille as
compared to when listening to words (Pring, 1988). This suggests that
proficient braille readers may preferentially encode linguistic informa­
tion in braille.
1.1. Considering socioeconomic status
When measuring executive function, considering an individual’s
economic and social opportunities is important. Executive function in­
volves coordinating one’s thoughts and actions to achieve goals (Miller
and Wallis, 2009). Low socioeconomic status (SES) is linked to poorer
scores on working memory measures (Ursache and Noble, 2016); the
disadvantages appear early in development and remain stable through
late adolescence, reflecting opportunity gaps. Importantly, those diag­
nosed with sensory impairments, such as blindness, are more likely to
come from low SES backgrounds, in part a consequence of major health
inequality (Dandona and Dandona, 2001). This creates the double
disadvantage of managing a complex disability in an environment with
fewer resources, yet, those who become blind early on have been shown
to strengthen their memory abilities and partially compensate for these
barriers as a result.
The current study evaluates verbal short-term memory and working
memory abilities in participants with and without impaired vision across
sensory modalities, while also matching for demographic characteristics
to account for potential SES differences. Using three established tasks,
we assess the effects of blindness on verbal short-term memory perfor­
mance (forward digit span), maintaining and manipulating items in
verbal working memory (backward digit span), as well as updating and
inhibiting verbal items in working memory (n-back).
2. Results
2.1. Digit span
A one-way repeated measures ANOVA with recall order (forward vs.
backward) as the within-subjects factor and group (blind vs sighted) as
the between-subjects factor revealed a main effect of group on auditory
span accuracy (F(1, 75) = 39.82, p <.001, η2p = 0.35) such that blind
participants recalled significantly more items than sighted participants
when collapsing across direction (forward and backward; cf. Fig. 1,
Table 3, Supplementary Table 2). We found no significant main effect of
recall order (F(1, 75) = 3.02, p =.09, η2p = 0.04) nor a recall order by
group interaction (F(1, 75) = 0.42, p =.52, η2p = 0.01).
We also tested whether the item encoding modality (auditory, visual,
or tactile) impacted memory span performance. Trials correct were
analyzed separately in the two groups due to the unique modalities in
which they participated, i.e., visual and auditory in sighted participants
and auditory and tactile in blind participants. Among the sighted
K. Arcos et al. Brain Research 1789 (2022) 147943

Table 3). Accuracy decreased as a function of n-back level, reflecting

increased working memory load. We found neither a main effect of
group (F(1, 71) = 0.17, p =.68, η2p = 0.002) nor an n-back level by group
interaction (F(3, 213) = 0.58, p =.63, η2p = 0.008).
Using reaction times (RTs) as an outcome measure, we found a main
effect of n-back level (F(3, 213) = 21.65, p <.001, η2p = 0.23), again
indicating increased load was associated with slower RTs. In addition,
we found no main effect of group on RTs (F(1, 71) = 2.52, p =.12, η2p =
0.03), such that sighted and blind participants showed no differences in
RTs. The group by n-back level interaction was not significant either (F
(3, 213) = 1.10, p =.35, η2p = 0.02).

2.3. Groups matched on age and SES

Fig. 1. Digit span performance as a function of group (accuracy). Performance 2.3.1. Digit span
for sighted individuals is shown on the left (visual and auditory digit spans), In the matched sample, a two-way repeated measures ANOVA on the
and performance for blind individuals is shown on the right (auditory and auditory digit span accuracy scores revealed a main effect of group (F(1,
braille digit spans). Error bars denote +/− 1 standard errors of the mean. 32) = 30.43, p <.001, η2p = 0.49), which is consistent with the full
Significant differences between forward and backwards span performance sample’s results. We found neither an effect of recall order (forward vs.
(within-subjects) are indicated by asterisks (*p <.01; ***p <.001). backward; F(1, 32) = 2.297, p =.14, η2p = 0.07) nor a group by recall
order interaction (F(1, 32) = 0.40, p =.53, η2p = 0.01). The full corre­
participants, a two-way repeated measures ANOVA revealed a main lation relationship between age, SES factors, and the dependent mea­
effect of modality (F(1, 57) = 30.57, p <.001, η2p = 0.35) such that sures is shown in Supplementary Tables 5 and 6.
sighted individuals recalled more items after encoding the list visually
rather than when heard. A main effect of recall order was also found (F 2.3.2. N-back
(1, 57) = 18.46, p <.001, η2p = 0.25) such that sighted participants Replicating results from the full sample, when matched for age and
recalled significantly more digits in forward as compared to backward SES, we found no main effect of group on n-back accuracy (F(1, 32) =
order. Sighted participants’ recall order by modality interaction was not 2.10, p =.16, η2p = 0.06), though the effect size was slightly larger in the
significant (F(1, 57) = 1.49, p =.23, η2p = 0.03). matched as compared to the full sample. No group by n-back level
A two-way repeated measures ANOVA revealed a main effect of interaction was found (F(3, 96) = 0.70, p =.56, η2p = 0.02; cf. Fig. 2).
modality among the blind participants such that more items were For RTs, similar to what we observed in the full sample, we found no
recalled when heard versus read in braille (F(1, 18) = 20.15, p <.001, η2p main effect of group (F(1, 32) = 2.74, p =.11, η2p = 0.08), and the group
= 0.53). Furthermore, we found a main effect of recall order (F(1, 18) = by n-back level interaction was not significant either (F(3, 96) = 1.22, p
19.89, p <.001, η2p = 0.53) such that more items were recalled in forward =.31, η2p = 0.04).
vs. backward order. However, a significant recall order by modality
interaction in blind participants conditioned these main effects (F(1, 17)
2.4. Controlling for stimulus duration
= 8.46, p =.01, η2p = 0.32). Post-hoc tests indicated that blind partici­
pants recalled the same number of items in reverse and forward order
We further considered the possibility that the braille digit span’s
when listening to the lists (t(18) = 0.59, p =.56, d = 0.14) and fewer
extended stimulus duration (1 sec, with a 1 sec ISI) possibly allowed
digits in reverse order as compared to forward when reading in braille (t
more time for rehearsal and deeper encoding as compared to the rapid,
(18) = 8.50, p <.001, d = 1.95). Whereas the blind participants did not
visually presented items (500 msec, with a 1 sec ISI). Therefore, a new
differ in forward span whether digits were heard or read in braille (t(18)
= 0.78, p >.05, d = 0.18), backward span performance was significantly
better when hearing digits as compared to reading them in braille (t(18)
= 6.12, p <.001, d = 1.40).
When comparing only blind participants who learned braille before
age eight, similar results emerged as compared to the full sample of blind
participants. We found a main effect of modality such that more items
were recalled when heard versus read in braille (F(1, 15) = 14.73, p
<.01, η2p = 0.495). A main effect of recall order was also found (F(1, 15)
= 17.24, p =.001, η2p = 0.54) such that more items were recalled in
forward vs. backward order. However, unlike in the full sample of blind
participants, no recall order by modality interaction was found in those
literate in braille before age 8 (F(1, 15) = 3.83, p =.07, η2p = 0.20).
Among the full sample, self-reported braille proficiency and digit span
(forward and backward) were significantly correlated, and this corre­
lation persisted only in the forward span among individuals that learned
braille before age eight (Supplementary Table 3).

2.2. N-back

A two-way ANOVA with n-back level (one through four-back) as the Fig. 2. N-back performance as a function of level and group (matched partic­
within-subjects factor and group (blind and sighted) as the between- ipants only). Accuracy reflects PR scores (proportion hits – proportion false
subjects factor revealed a main effect of n-back level on accuracy (F(3, alarms). Error bars denote +/− 1 standard error of the mean. No group dif­
213) = 115.23, p <.001, η2p = 0.62; c.f. Table 3 and Supplementary ferences reached significance.

3
K. Arcos et al.
group of sighted participants completed the visual digit span using both
the standard (500 msec) and an extended (1 sec) stimulus duration, with
the extended duration matching the braille presentation time. Partici­
pants completed both conditions in randomized order.
A one-way repeated measures ANOVA using digit duration (fast vs.
slow) as the within-subjects factor revealed a main effect of digit dura­
tion (F(1, 48) = 26.88, p <.001, η2p = 0.53) such that the sighted par­
ticipants performed better on the shorter duration forward trials (M =
11.80, SD = 3.46) as compared to the longer duration forward trials (M
= 8.60, SD = 4.38). The sighted participants also performed better on
the shorter duration backward trials (M = 9.00, SD = 2.96) as compared
to the longer duration backward trials (M = 7.64, SD = 3.52).
3. Discussion
This study evaluates how visual deprivation may impact verbal
short-term and working memory abilities using carefully controlled
environments and matching based on participant demographics. We
considered preferred sensory modalities during encoding and in­
dividuals’ SES. Consistent with previous studies (Occelli et al., 2017; Raz
et al., 2007; Withagen et al., 2013), we find blind participants have a
clear advantage over sighted individuals on a verbal digit span task
(Occelli et al., 2017; Raz et al., 2007; Withagen et al., 2013). Gains were
most evident on the auditory forward span task which drove the group
effect. However, differences were also apparent on the backward audi­
tory span task in that reversing digit order did not impact blind in­
dividuals’ number of trials correct despite the additional cognitive load.
On the braille span task, digit order impacted recall: Backward recall
was attenuated as compared to forward recall, consistent with sighted
individuals’ lower backward recall on the visual task due to added load
effects. We found no evidence of enhanced verbal working memory on
an auditory n-back task, even after controlling for age and SES.
3.1. Digit span
Our finding that adults who are blind outperform the sighted on
verbal span tasks replicates many previous studies showing congenitally
blind populations recall more items as compared to sighted populations
(Amedi et al., 2003; Hull and Mason, 1995; Occelli et al., 2017; Pas­
qualotto et al., 2013; Röder et al., 2001; Swanson and Luxenberg, 2009;
Withagen et al., 2013). Our findings are consistent with the proposal
that the blind’s improved verbal short-term memory is likely a conse­
quence of relying on verbal encoding strategies as an extensive form of
training in ecological settings.
We know, for example, that superior verbal short-term memory ex­
tends beyond item memory to include serial position recall (Raz et al.,
2007). Thus, performance on memory span tasks may reflect the use of
strategies that explicitly capitalize on ordinal processing, such as
chaining, in which adjacent items are associated based on their spatial
positions or on timing intervals between items. Sighted individuals
trained to use chaining have increased recall on both short-term and
working memory tasks relative to non-trained controls, and those with
higher memory capacity benefit more from memory strategies as
compared to those with lower memory capacity (McNamara and Scott,
2001). Whether our results, and those of previous studies, reflect
increased verbal memory capacity or increased capacity facilitated
through chaining and ordinal positions is unclear.
Our findings may also reflect improved speech processing efficiency.
This improvement may, in turn, make available more cognitive re­
sources for engaging short-term memory functions. Studies suggest blind
individuals may be more sensitive to speech sounds and selectively
attend to targeted speech more effectively (Hötting and Röder, 2009;
Muchnik et al., 1991; Röder et al., 2003; Weaver and Stevens, 2007).
Moreover, when speech sounds’ perceptual salience are equated on an
individual participant level, blind and sighted individuals show equiv­
alent verbal short-term memory spans (Rokem and Ahissar, 2009). We
4
Brain Research 1789 (2022) 147943
did not calibrate our stimuli’s salience to individual thresholds and thus
the extent to which perceptual processing efficiencies contributed to the
group differences observed here remains unclear.
We further find that blind participants’ short-term memory advan­
tage did not transfer across encoding modalities. In particular, blind
participants showed a clear benefit when recalling items encoded au­
ditorily such that span did not differ between forward and backward
recall, unlike on the braille digit span. To the extent that span capacity
reflects cognitive loads imposed by encoding in the nonpreferred mo­
dality (De Jong, 2010; Frick, 1984), our findings indicate a preference
for auditory encoding over braille. The blind’s auditory backward digit
span performance is also notably different from sighted participants,
who recalled fewer items in reverse on both auditory and visual span
tasks. This finding is consistent with previous reports of improved
auditory encoding efficiency in blindness (Hötting and Röder, 2009;
Muchnik et al., 1991; Rokem and Ahissar, 2009) and indicates that blind
participants have sufficiently enhanced span capacity (or compensatory
strategies) such that reversing heard items during recall does not tax the
cognitive system’s limit. Importantly, this advantage seems to be
restricted to the auditory domain.
One inference from modality specificity in the backward recall is
that, even for the experienced braille readers in this sample, encoding
text processed through hearing is less cognitively demanding than
reading in braille. Reasons for the difference in cognitive demand are not
entirely clear. Evidence suggests that decoding braille places demands
on visuospatial processes, in addition to the verbal demands of main­
taining the items in verbal short-term memory. In a previous study,
recall on a braille letter span decreased among congenitally blind in­
dividuals when completed in conjunction with a spatial interfering task
as compared to a verbal interfering task (Cohen et al., 2010). Given that
congenitally blind individuals’ spatial memory processes are disadvan­
taged relative to sighted individuals (Cornoldi et al., 1991), encoding
verbal information in braille may more heavily tax cognitive systems
and render braille readers more susceptible to load effects. The differ­
ences may also reflect the dominance of accessibility tools such as
spoken and text-to-speech technology in daily practice or inherent dif­
ferences in demands of representing verbal information when encoding
text through braille versus speech.
Reading braille is known to require more time than reading print,
with even the most experienced braille readers having slower reading
rates as compared to print reading (Wetzel and Knowlton, 2000). In our
study, blind participants were exposed to braille digits for longer du­
rations in order to successfully encode each item. We do not believe,
however, that the longer trial durations on the braille digit span tasks
would explain the blind’s verbal short-term memory advantage over
sighted participants. In a control experiment (completed by sighted
participants only), the longer exposure duration did not facilitate recall
and instead appeared to promote item decay, potentially due to the
longer time between items (Ricker et al., 2014). Therefore, we do not
attribute our results to increased rehearsal time.
In any memory study, considering age and SES as possible confounds
is important. Cognitive sciences is increasingly recognizing the need to
include samples and researchers who more accurately represent diverse
populations in psychological findings (Hötting and Röder, 2009; Medin,
2017; Roberts et al., 2020; Syed, 2017). Our study samples drew from a
highly diverse racial/ethnic population (cf. Tables 1 and 2). Blind par­
ticipants outperformed our full sample of sighted participants, despite
the fact that the blind participants included here represent a more so­
cioeconomically diverse and disadvantaged population as compared to
the sighted group. We take this as evidence that despite possibly facing
double disadvantages due to blindness and SES, blind individuals’ short-
term memory capacity is robust to the SES factors that may otherwise
adversely impact cognitive functions. To probe this further, an addi­
tional analysis of sighted and blind participants matched for age,
household income, and maternal education returned similar results as
the unmatched sample, with a notably larger effect size despite the
K. Arcos et al. Brain Research 1789 (2022) 147943

Table 1
Age, gender and demographic information of the full sample population.
Unmatched (Full) Sample Blind Sighted Sighted Timing Control t p Effect size

N 19 58 25

Age (range and mean) 22–48 (28.74) 17–49 (25.69) 18–45 (21.9)
− 1.46a’ 0.15 − 0.38a’

Age of VI onset (years, range and mean) 0–3 (0.66)

Gender (%)
Male 21 28 20
Female 79 66 80
Prefer not to disclose 0 7 0
0.52 0.47 0.08

Ethnicity (%)
African American/Black 11 0 8
Asian American/Pacific Islander 11 29 44
Latinx/Hispanic American 53 52 28
Native American/Alaska Native 11 0 0
White/Euro American 11 9 12
Nonhispanic 58 38 64
Prefer not to disclose 5 10 8
13.89 0.01 0.45

Maternal Education (%)

Less than high school 42 21 8
High School Diploma or GED 11 21 16
Some college/vocational trade 11 17 24
Associate’s Degree 5 7 8
Bachelor’s Degree 11 21 32
Postgraduate or Professional 11 5 8
Prefer not to disclose 11 9 4
5.31 0.38 0.28

Family Income (%)

$0–23,050 37 22 16
$23,050–32,500 11 10 12
$32,500–60,000 21 16 20
$60,000–100,000 5 21 12
$100,000–150,000 0 7 0
$150,000 or more 6 9 16
Prefer not to disclose 21 16 24
5.06 0.41 0.28

overall smaller sample size. We encourage future studies to include
broader SES factors such as household and material income, in addition
to age and education. These could contribute to unmask structural fac­
tors that otherwise obscure any cognitive advantages.
measures. Therefore, we do not attribute our findings to those factors.
Instead, our findings suggest that even with congenital or early blind­
ness promoting efficient verbal processing, this efficiency is insufficient
to overcome the cognitive demands of manipulating and updating in­
formation in verbal working memory.

3.2. N-back
N-back tasks rely more extensively on executive functions as
compared to the digit span (Kane et al., 2007). Our study adds to the
growing evidence that improved verbal short-term memory may not
imply enhanced executive function more generally. Previous work uti­
lizing the n-back in blind and sighted participants finds no impact of
visual status on accuracy, although some studies report faster reaction
times in the blind populations (Gudi-Mindermann et al., 2018; Park
et al., 2011; Pigeon and Marin-Lamellet, 2015, 2017). When comparing
n-back accuracy across preferred modalities (visual for the sighted
sample, braille for a congenitally blind sample), no between-group dif­
ferences were found, and blind and sighted populations improved on n-
back tasks at equivalent training rates (Bliss et al., 2004; Park et al.,
2011).
Like studies before ours, we were careful to match on participants’
age and education (Bliss et al., 2004; Park et al., 2011; Pigeon and
Marin-Lamellet, 2017), both of which impact working memory
3.3. Conclusions and future directions
Overall, our data provide evidence that participants who are blind
outperform sighted participants on verbal short-term memory digit span
tasks. This superiority was most pronounced when encoding items au­
ditorily rather than through braille, evidence for heard speech being less
cognitively taxing as compared to reading braille.
Much remains to be understood of memory abilities, namely how
visual deprivation contributes to developing these benefits. More
research is needed to understand how information modality and
encoding may interact, given the advantage we observed for auditory
over braille encoding. Based on the importance of SES on working
memory development, we recommend future research addresses how
susceptible these functions are to stressors, when the benefits emerge
developmentally, and if these benefits may be associated with resilience.
Importantly, we conclude that blindness contributes to unique cognitive
strengths, such as verbal short term memory benefits in blind as

5
K. Arcos et al. Brain Research 1789 (2022) 147943

Table 2
Age, gender and demographic information for the matched sample.
Matched Sample

Unmatched Factors Blind Sighted t p Effect size (Cohen’s D)

N 17 17

Gender (%)
Male 24 41
Female 77 59
Prefer not to disclose 0 0
1.21 0.27 0.19

Ethnicity (%)
African American/Black 12 0
Asian American/Pacific Islander 6 6
Latinx/Hispanic American 53 82
Native American/Alaska Native 12 0
White/Euro American 12 12
Nonhispanic 41 18
Prefer not to disclose 6.00 0.00
5.06 0.28 0.39

Matched Factors
Age (range and mean) 22–48 (28.59) 21–49 (29.59)
0.39a 0.70 0.13a

Maternal Education (%)

Less than high school 47 24
High School Diploma or GED 6 18
Some college/vocational trade 12 24
Associate’s Degree 6 0
Bachelor’s Degree 6 12
Postgraduate or Professional 12 12
Prefer not to disclose 12 12
4.33 0.50 0.38

Family Income (%)

$0–23,050 41 24
$23,050–32,500 12 6
$32,500–60,000 18 24
$60,000–100,000 6 24
$100000–150,000 0 6
$150,000 or more 6 6
Prefer not to disclose 18 12
4.07 0.54 0.37

compared to sighted individuals. Casteren and Davis, 2007).

4. Experimental procedure
4.1. Participants
Seventy-seven participants volunteered for this study (sighted: N =
58, aged 17–49; mean age = 25.69 ± 8.16; blind: N = 19, aged 22–48;
mean age = 28.74 ± 6.98). To be eligible for the study, blind partici­
pants could have no more than light perception in the better eye, and
their preferred reading medium was braille. Sighted participants had
self-reported normal, or corrected to normal vision. All participants
were fluent English speakers. Participants were ineligible if they had
additional neurological or developmental disabilities, as well as if they
had a recent history of illicit drug use. Participants were recruited using
snowball sampling and from throughout the university community. Two
of the 19 blind participants did not complete the n-back task but were
included in the digit span analyses. Additional details on population
demographics are shown in Tables 1 and 2.
Both age and SES differed between our two groups’ full samples (cf.
Table 1). Therefore, we selected a subset of blind (n = 17) and sighted (n
= 17) participants from the larger group, matched on factors of age,
maternal education, and family income, for secondary analyses. SES was
held equivalent across both groups using the program ‘Match’ (Van
An additional group of sighted participants (N = 25, aged 18–45;
mean age = 21.92 ± 5.18) participated in a control experiment using the
visual digit span task (described in further detail below).
4.2. Procedures
The University of California Irvine Human Subjects Institutional
Review Board approved all study procedures, and all participants con­
sented prior to participating. Study tasks were controlled using Mac
computers running MATLAB (Mathworks, Inc.) with the PsychToolbox
(Brainard, 1997). Participants listened to items using the internal com­
puter speakers. Digits for the braille digit span were displayed on
Freedom Scientific’s Focus 40 Braille Display. With the exception of the
demographic questionnaire, participants inputted responses using an
external numeric keypad.
Participants completed two tasks under blindfold: an auditory digit
span and an auditory n-back task. Sighted participants additionally
completed a visual digit span task, while blind participants completed a
braille digit span task (also under blindfold). Participants completed
digit span and n-back tasks in counterbalanced order.
4.2.1. Digit span. Participants were presented unique lists of single
digits (1–9) in pre-determined orders based on the Wechsler Memory

6
K. Arcos et al. Brain Research 1789 (2022) 147943

Table 3
Summary of participants, tasks, and results for the full and matched samples.
Unmatched (Full) Sample N F p η2p
Task Modality Blind Sighted

Digit Span
Auditory main effect of group 19 58 39.82 0.000 0.35
main effect of recall order 3.02 0.09 0.04
recall order × group 0.42 0.52 0.01
Visual (exp) main effect of modality – 58 30.57 0.000 0.35
main effect of recall order 18.46 0.000 0.25
recall order × modality 1.49 0.23 0.03
Braille main effect of modality 19 – 20.15 0.000 0.53
main effect of recall order 19.89 0.000 0.53
recall order × modality 8.46 0.01 0.32
Visual (timing control) – 25
main effect of digit duration 26.88 0.000 0.53

N-Back
Auditory 17 56
PR main effect of group 0.17 0.68 0.002
main effect of n-back 115.226 0.000 0.62
n-back level × group 0.58 0.63 0.008
RT main effect of group 2.52 0.12 0.03
main effect of n-back 21.65 0.000 0.23
n-back level × group 1.10 0.35 0.02

Matched (sub) Sample

Task Modality Blind Sighted F p Effect size

Digit Span
Auditory main effect of group 17 17
main effect of recall order 30.43 0.000 0.49
recall order × group 2.297 0.14 0.07
0.404 0.53 0.01

N-Back
Auditory PR main effect of group 17 17 2.10 0.16 0.06
n-back level × group 0.70 0.56 0.02

RT main effect of group 2.74 0.11 0.08

n-back level × group 1.22 0.31 0.04

Scale (Wechsler, 1945). Participants recalled the digits either in forward
or reverse order, with the two tasks completed in separate blocks. To
familiarize themselves with the task, participants completed two prac­
tice trials per block, followed by the experimental trials. The lists ranged
in length from two to twelve items, with two trials completed per list
length. List lengths increased by one digit if the participant correctly
recalled all digits in order on the prior two trials. The task terminated
when participants committed errors on both lists of the same length.
Trials correct, our dependent variable, was computed as the total
number of trials recalled correctly, summed over all list lengths. All
participants completed the digit span using the same digit sequences;
however, lists of items were not repeated across either the visual,
auditory, or braille tasks.
Digit duration and interstimulus intervals (ISIs) were adjusted for
each digit span modality to facilitate sensory encoding. Digits on the
auditory span task were recorded using a female speaker, standardized
to a 500 msec duration with a 1 sec ISI and played at a comfortable
volume. Digits on the visual span were displayed in black on a white
screen and were visible to sighted participants for 500 msec with a 1 sec
ISI. Digit duration on the braille version was extended to 1 sec (1 sec ISI)
to allow sufficient time for reading, which, even for the most advanced
braille readers, is generally slower than print reading (Wetzel and
Knowlton, 2000).
4.2.2. Auditory n-back. Participants heard letters and identified
whether or not the current letter matched the letter heard n positions
back on the list by key press (‘4′ for targets, and ‘6′ for non-targets).
Working memory load increased as a function of n-back level, which
ranged from one to four in increasing difficulty across subsequent
blocks. The following consonants were selected for the n-back task to
minimize confusion, maximize clarity, and for standardized letter
duration when heard: C, D, G, K, P, Q, T, and V (Jaeggi et al., 2010).
Items were recorded using a female voice and were played back for 500
msec with a 2.5 sec ISI.
Participants practiced the task for a list of 10 trials at each n-back
level. Participants were required to achieve 70% accuracy (1-back) or
60% (2-back) to proceed to the main task. No minimum accuracy
threshold was required for the 3- and 4-back practice trials.
On the main task, each n-back level consisted of three lists with 20 +
n trials per list. Each list included six target trials in which the letter
matched the n-back item. Two-, three-, and four-back lists included six
lures (targets that matched the n-1 or n + 1 items). The remaining trials
across all n-back lists consisted of filler items. Accuracy and reaction
times were recorded. Accuracy was used to compute PR scores, i.e. the
difference between proportion hits (correctly identified targets) and
proportion false alarms (fillers and lures incorrectly identified as tar­
gets). Average PR scores, averaged n + 1 and n-1 lure accuracy, and
average median correct reaction times (RTs) were used as dependent
variables.
4.2.3. Digit span timing control experiment. An additional group of
sighted participants completed two versions of the visual digit span task:
an identical version as in the main experiment in which digits were
presented for a 500 msec duration with a 1 sec ISI, and an extended

7
K. Arcos et al.
version in which digits were presented for 1 sec with a 1 sec ISI
(matching the braille span’s duration and timing). Lists and visual digit
span versions were counterbalanced across participants.
4.3. Demographic questionnaire
All participants completed a demographic questionnaire. Partici­
pants provided information about their gender, age, socioeconomic
status (income, education level of participants and both of their par­
ents), race/ethnicity, and whether they were diagnosed with neurolog­
ical disorders or cognitive or psychiatric disabilities (Supplementary
Table 1). In addition, participants who are blind answered questions
about their blindness severity, rated their braille proficiency level,
braille reading frequency, and reported their preferred reading medium.
Fifteen participants who were blind answered additional questions
about their blindness, providing details on whether or not they could see
shapes, color, or motion, as well as their visual diagnosis, current and
maximum visual acuity, and whether or not they perceived light. Par­
ticipants also answered questions about their blindness onset, including
the ages (in years) at which they stopped having functional vision and
reading print, as well as when they became totally blind for those whose
vision loss was progressive.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Karen Arcos: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Formal
analysis, Investigation, Data curation, Writing – original draft, Project
administration, Funding acquisition. Susanne M. Jaeggi: Conceptuali­
zation, Methodology, Validation, Formal analysis, Resources, Writing –
review & editing, Visualization, Supervision, Project administration.
Emily D. Grossman: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Re­
sources, Writing – review & editing, Visualization, Supervision, Project
administration, Funding acquisition.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
We gratefully acknowledge study participants, as well as Braille
Institute of America in Los Angeles, National Federation of the Blind,
Blind Children’s Center, and Wayfinder Family Services for recruitment
assistance. We thank the following individuals for collecting and
analyzing data, as well as for preparing and offering graphics, refer­
ences, equipment, and stimuli: Deena E. Afana, Jacky Wo Hay Au,
Jennifer Chau, Louis Herrera, Nicholas T. Hilberg, Oscar O. Huete,
Patrick T. Hwu, Tania Reyes, Sharmin Shanur, and Kirstyn Tara.
Funding
Two National Science Foundation, United States fellowships and
grants supported this research (DGE-1321846 and BCS-1658560). It also
received support from the University of California Irvine and the Uni­
versity of California President’s Postdoctoral Fellowship. Funding
sources were not involved in study design; in the collection, analysis and
interpretation of data; in writing the report; or in deciding to submit the
article for publication. The authors are solely responsible for the
content.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.brainres.2022.147943.
8
Brain Research 1789 (2022) 147943
References
Amedi, A., Raz, N., Pianka, P., Malach, R., Zohary, E., 2003. Early ’visual’ cortex
activation correlates with superior verbal memory performance in the blind. Nat.
Neurosci. 6 (7), 758–766. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1072.
Arcos, K., Harhen, N., Loiotile, R., Bedny, M., 2022. Superior verbal but not nonverbal
memory in congenital blindness. Exp. Brain Res. 240, 897–908. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s00221-021-06304-4.
Bathelt, J., de Haan, M., Salt, A., Dale, N.J., 2018. Executive abilities in children with
congenital visual impairment in mid-childhood. Child Neuropsychol. 24 (2),
184–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/09297049.2016.1240158.
Bavelier, D., Neville, H.J., 2002. Cross-modal plasticity: where and how? Nat. Rev.
Neurosci. 3 (6), 443–452. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn848.
Bedny, M., 2017. Evidence from blindness for a cognitively pluripotent cortex. Trends
Cogn. Sci. 21 (9), 637–648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2017.06.003.
Bedny, M., Pascual-Leone, A., Dodell-Feder, D., Fedorenko, E., Saxe, R., 2011. Language
processing in the occipital cortex of congenitally blind adults. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
108 (11), 4429–4434. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1014818108.
Bliss, I., Kujala, T., Hämäläinen, H., 2004. Comparison of blind and sighted participants’
performance in a letter recognition working memory task. Cogn. Brain Res. 18 (3),
273–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2003.10.012.
Brainard, D.H., 1997. The psychophysics Toolbox. Spat. Vis. 10 (4), 433–436. https://
doi.org/10.1163/156856897X00357.
Cohen, H., Voss, P., Lepore, F., Scherzer, P., Gilbert, S., 2010. The nature of working
memory for Braille. PLoS ONE 5 (5), e10833.
Collignon, O., Renier, L., Bruyer, R., Tranduy, D., Veraart, C., 2006. Improved selective
and divided spatial attention in early blind subjects. Brain Res. 1075 (1), 175–182.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2005.12.079.
Cornoldi, C., Cortesi, A., Preti, D., 1991. Individual differences in the capacity limitations
of visuospatial short-term memory: Research on sighted and totally congenitally
blind people. Mem. Cogn. 19 (5), 459–468. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03199569.
Dandona, R., Dandona, L., 2001. Socioeconomic status and blindness. Br. J. Ophthalmol.
85 (12), 1484–1488. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.85.12.1484.
De Jong, T., 2010. Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design:
some food for thought. Instr. Sci. 38 (2), 105–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-
009-9110-0.
Dormal, V., Crollen, V., Baumans, C., Lepore, F., Collignon, O., 2016. Early but not late
blindness leads to enhanced arithmetic and working memory abilities. Cortex 83,
212–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2016.07.016.
Frick, R.W., 1984. Using both an auditory and a visual short-term store to increase digit
span. Mem. Cogn. 12 (5), 507–514. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03198313.
Gudi-Mindermann, H., Rimmele, J.M., Nolte, G., Bruns, P., Engel, A.K., Röder, B., 2018.
Working memory training in congenitally blind individuals results in an integration
of occipital cortex in functional networks. Behav. Brain Res. 348, 31–41. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.bbr.2018.04.002.
Hamilton, R.H., Pascual-Leone, A., 1998. Cortical plasticity associated with Braille
learning. Retrieved from Trends Cogn. Sci. 2 (5), 168–174. https://www.cell.com/t
rends/cognitive-sciences/home.
Hötting, K., Röder, B., 2009. Auditory and auditory-tactile processing in congenitally
blind humans. Hear. Res. 258 (1–2), 165–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
heares.2009.07.012.
Hull, T., Mason, H., 1995. Performance of blind children on digit-span tests. J. Visual
Impair. Blind. 89 (2), 166–169. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X9508900213.
Jaeggi, S.M., Buschkuehl, M., Perrig, W.J., Meier, B., 2010. The concurrent validity of the
N-back task as a working memory measure. Memory 18 (4), 394–412. https://doi.
org/10.1080/09658211003702171.
Jonides, J., Lewis, R.L., Nee, D.E., Lustig, C.A., Berman, M.G., Moore, K.S., 2008. The
mind and brain of short-term memory. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 59 (1), 193–224. https://
doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093615.
Kane, M.J., Conway, A.R., Miura, T.K., Colflesh, G.J., 2007. Working memory, attention
control, and the N-back task: a question of construct validity. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn.
Mem. Cogn. 33 (3), 615. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.33.3.615.
Klatzky, R.L., Marston, J.R., Giudice, N.A., Golledge, R.G., Loomis, J.M., 2006. Cognitive
load of navigating without vision when guided by virtual sound versus spatial
language. J. Exp. Psychol.: Appl. 12 (4), 223–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-
898X.12.4.223.
Kujala, T., Lehtokoski, A., Alho, K., Kekoni, J., Näätänen, R., 1997. Faster reaction times
in the blind than sighted during bimodal divided attention. Retrieved from Acta
Psychol. 96 (1–2), 75–82. https://www.journals.elsevier.com/acta-psychologica.
McNamara, D.S., Scott, J.L., 2001. Working memory capacity and strategy use. Mem.
Cogn. 29 (1), 10–17. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03195736.
Medin, D.L., 2017. Psychological science as a complex system: Report card. Perspect.
Psychol. Sci. 12 (4), 669–674. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616687746.
Miller, E.K., Wallis, J.D., 2009. Executive function and higher-order cognition: definition
and neural substrates. In: Squire, L.R. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Neuroscience. Elsevier,
pp. 99–104.
Muchnik, C., Efrati, M., Nemeth, E., Malin, M., Hildesheimer, M., 1991. Central auditory
skills in blind and sighted subjects. Scand. Audiol. 20 (1), 19–23. https://doi.org/
10.3109/01050399109070785.
Occelli, V., Lacey, S., Stephens, C., Merabet, L.B., Sathian, K., 2017. Enhanced verbal
abilities in the congenitally blind. Exp. Brain Res. 235 (6), 1709–1718. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s00221-017-4931-6.
Pant, R., Kanjlia, S., Bedny, M., 2020. A sensitive period in the neural phenotype of
language in blind individuals. Dev. Cogn. Neurosci. 41, 100744 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.dcn.2019.100744.
K. Arcos et al.
Park, H.J., Chun, J.W., Park, B., Park, H., Kim, J.I., Lee, J.D., Kim, J.J., 2011. Activation
of the occipital cortex and deactivation of the default mode network during working
memory in the early blind. J. Int. Neuropsychol. Soc. 17 (3), 407–422. https://doi.
org/10.1017/S1355617711000051.
Pasqualotto, A., Lam, J.S., Proulx, M.J., 2013. Congenital blindness improves semantic
and episodic memory. Behav. Brain Res. 244, 162–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
bbr.2013.02.005.
Pigeon, C., Marin-Lamellet, C., 2015. Evaluation of the attentional capacities and
working memory of early and late blind persons. Acta Psychol. 155, 1–7. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.11.010.
Pigeon, C., Marin-Lamellet, C., 2017. Ageing effects on the attentional capacities and
working memory of people who are blind. Disabil. Rehabil. 39 (24), 2492–2498.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2016.1236407.
Pring, L., 1988. The ‘reverse-generation’ effect: A comparison of memory performance
between blind and sighted children. Br. J. Psychol. 79 (3), 387–400. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.2044-8295.1988.tb02297.x.
Raz, N., Striem, E., Pundak, G., Orlov, T., Zohary, E., 2007. Superior serial memory in the
blind: a case of cognitive compensatory adjustment. Curr. Biol. 17 (13), 1129–1133.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2007.05.060.
Ricker, T.J., Spiegel, L.R., Cowan, N., 2014. Time-based loss in visual short-term memory
is from trace decay, not temporal distinctiveness. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn.
40 (6), 1510. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000018.
Roberts, S.O., Bareket-Shavit, C., Dollins, F.A., Goldie, P.D., Mortenson, E., 2020. Racial
inequality in psychological research: Trends of the past and recommendations for the
future. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 15 (6), 1295–1309. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1745691620927709.
Röder, B., Demuth, L., Streb, J., Rösler, F., 2003. Semantic and morpho-syntactic priming
in auditory word recognition in congenitally blind adults. Lang. Cogn. Process. 18
(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960143000407.
Röder, B., Rösler, F., Neville, H.J., 2001. Auditory memory in congenitally blind adults: a
behavioral-electrophysiological investigation. Cogn. Brain Res. 11 (2), 289–303.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0926-6410(01)00002-7.
Röder, B., Stock, O., Bien, S., Neville, H., Rösler, F., 2002. Speech processing activates
visual cortex in congenitally blind humans. Eur. J. Neurosci. 16 (5), 930–936.
https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1460-9568.2002.02147.x.
Rokem, A., Ahissar, M., 2009. Interactions of cognitive and auditory abilities in
congenitally blind individuals. Neuropsychologia 47 (3), 843–848. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.12.017.
Brain Research 1789 (2022) 147943
Sadato, N., Pascual-Leone, A., Grafman, J., Ibañez, V., Deiber, M.-P., Dold, G.,
Hallett, M., 1996. Activation of the primary visual cortex by Braille reading in blind
subjects. Nature 380 (6574), 526–528. https://doi.org/10.1038/380526a0.
Smits, B., Mommers, M., 1976. Differences between blind and sighted children on WISC
verbal subtests. J. Visual Impair. Blind. 70 (6), 240–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0145482X7607000604.
Swanson, H.L., Luxenberg, D., 2009. Short-term memory and working memory in
children with blindness: support for a domain general or domain specific system?
Child Neuropsychol. 15 (3), 280–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09297040802524206.
Syed, M., 2017. Why traditional metrics may not adequately represent ethnic minority
psychology. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 12 (6), 1162–1165. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1745691617709590.
Ursache, A., Noble, K.G., 2016. Neurocognitive development in socioeconomic context:
Multiple mechanisms and implications for measuring socioeconomic status.
Psychophysiology 53 (1), 71–82. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp. 12547.
Van Casteren, M., Davis, M.H., 2007. Match: A program to assist in matching the
conditions of factorial experiments. Behav. Res. Methods 39 (4), 973–978. https://
doi.org/10.3758/BF03192992.
Vecchi, T., Tinti, C., Cornoldi, C., 2004. Spatial memory and integration processes in
congenital blindness. Retrieved from NeuroReport 15 (18), 2787–2790. https:
//journals.lww.com/neuroreport/pages/default.aspx.
Weaver, K.E., Stevens, A.A., 2007. Attention and sensory interactions within the occipital
cortex in the early blind: an fMRI study. J. Cognit. Neurosci. 19 (2), 315–330.
https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2007.19.2.315.
Wechsler, D., 1945. Wechsler Memory Scale. Psychological Corporation.
Wetzel, R., Knowlton, M., 2000. A comparison of print and Braille reading rates on three
reading tasks. J. Vis. Impair. Blind. 94 (3), 146–154. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0145482X0009400303.
Withagen, A., Kappers, A.M., Vervloed, M.P., Knoors, H., Verhoeven, L., 2013. Short term
memory and working memory in blind versus sighted children. Res. Dev. Disabil. 34
(7), 2161–2172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2013.03.028.
Wyver, S.R., Markham, R., 1998. Do children with visual impairments demonstrate
superior short-term memory, memory strategies, and metamemory? J. Vis. Impair.
Blind. 92 (11), 799–811. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X9809201107.