Perceptual invariance or orientation specificity in American Sign Language? Evidence from repetition priming for signs and gestures

Repetition priming has been successfully employed to examine stages of processing in a wide variety of cognitive domains including language, object recognition, and memory. This study uses a novel repetition priming paradigm in the context of a categorisation task to explore early stages in the processing of American Sign Language signs and self-grooming gestures. Specifically, we investigated the degree to which deaf signers’ and hearing nonsigners’ perception of these linguistic or nonlinguistic actions might be differentially robust to changes in perceptual viewpoint. We conjectured that to the extent that signers were accessing language-specific representations in their performance of the task, they might show more similar priming effects under different viewing conditions than hearing subjects. In essence, this would provide evidence for a visually based “lack of invariance” phenomenon. However, if the early stages of visual-action processing are similar for deaf and hearing subjects, then no such difference should be found. In both groups, we observed robust effects of viewpoint, indicating that repetition priming for identical prime–target pairs was greater than in cases of categorisation in which the prime and target varied in viewpoint. However, we found little evidence of group-related differences that could be interpreted as effects of perceptual invariance. These outcomes indicate that initial stages of sign and gesture recognition required for the categorisation of action types do not differ as a function of experience with a signed language. Instead, our data are consistent with and extend previously described visual-perceptual studies that have reported evidence for orientation-specific representations of human actions.

[1]  A. Liberman,et al.  The role of selected stimulus-variables in the perception of the unvoiced stop consonants. , 1952, The American journal of psychology.

[2]  K. Verfaillie Orientation-dependent priming effects in the perception of biological motion. , 1993, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[3]  I. Biederman Recognizing depth-rotated objects: a review of recent research and theory. , 2000, Spatial vision.

[4]  M. Tarr,et al.  Mental rotation and orientation-dependence in shape recognition , 1989, Cognitive Psychology.

[5]  G. E. Peterson,et al.  Control Methods Used in a Study of the Vowels , 1951 .

[6]  S D Fischer,et al.  Looking through phonological shape to lexical meaning: The bottleneck of non-native sign language processing , 1989, Memory & cognition.

[7]  I. Biederman Recognition-by-components: a theory of human image understanding. , 1987, Psychological review.

[8]  A M Liberman,et al.  Perception of the speech code. , 1967, Psychological review.

[9]  D. Corina,et al.  Modality and structure in signed and spoken languages: Psycholinguistic investigations of phonological structure in ASL , 2002 .

[10]  David P. Corina,et al.  Psycholinguistic and Neurolinguistic Perspectives on Sign Languages , 2006 .

[11]  Jill P. Morford,et al.  Sign Perception and Recognition in Non-Native Signers of ASL , 2011, Language learning and development : the official journal of the Society for Language Development.

[12]  Susan Goldin-Meadow,et al.  CNS activation and regional connectivity during pantomime observation: No engagement of the mirror neuron system for deaf signers , 2010, NeuroImage.

[13]  Louis Goldstein,et al.  Towards an articulatory phonology , 1986, Phonology.

[14]  Alexander L. Francis,et al.  Paying attention to speaking rate , 1996, Proceeding of Fourth International Conference on Spoken Language Processing. ICSLP '96.

[15]  D. Marr,et al.  Representation and recognition of the spatial organization of three-dimensional shapes , 1978, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences.

[16]  H. Kucera,et al.  Computational analysis of present-day American English , 1967 .

[17]  W. Stokoe,et al.  Sign language structure: an outline of the visual communication systems of the American deaf. 1960. , 1961, Journal of deaf studies and deaf education.

[18]  C A Fowler,et al.  Production and perception of coarticulation among stressed and unstressed vowels. , 1981, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[19]  Philip K. McGuire,et al.  Dissociating linguistic and nonlinguistic gestural communication in the brain , 2004, NeuroImage.

[20]  K. Emmorey,et al.  Lexical Recognition in Sign Language: Effects of Phonetic Structure and Morphology , 1990, Perceptual and motor skills.

[21]  K. Verfaillie,et al.  Viewpoint-dependent Priming Effects in the Perception of Human Actions and Body Postures , 1999 .

[22]  A. Liberman Some Results of Research on Speech Perception , 1957 .

[23]  M. Tarr,et al.  When does Human Object Recognition use a Viewer-Centered Reference Frame? , 1990 .

[24]  M. Pavlova,et al.  Orientation specificity in biological motion perception , 2000, Perception & psychophysics.

[25]  Rachel I. Mayberry,et al.  The long-lasting advantage of learning sign language in childhood: Another look at the critical period for language acquisition , 1991 .

[26]  M. Tarr Rotating objects to recognize them: A case study on the role of viewpoint dependency in the recognition of three-dimensional objects , 1995, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[27]  Allen Braun,et al.  Neural correlates of human action observation in hearing and deaf subjects , 2007, Brain Research.

[28]  K. Emmorey Language, Cognition, and the Brain: Insights From Sign Language Research , 2001 .

[29]  A. Liberman,et al.  The motor theory of speech perception revised , 1985, Cognition.

[30]  Penny A. Cook,et al.  Using Statistics to Understand the Environment , 2000 .

[31]  Matthew W. G. Dye,et al.  Do deaf individuals see better? , 2006, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[32]  U. Bellugi,et al.  Perception of American sign language in dynamic point-light displays. , 1981, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.