Handshape monitoring: Evaluation of linguistic and perceptual factors in the processing of American Sign Language

We investigated the relevance of linguistic and perceptual factors to sign processing by comparing hearing individuals and deaf signers as they performed a handshape monitoring task, a sign-language analogue to the phoneme-monitoring paradigms used in many spoken-language studies. Each subject saw a series of brief video clips, each of which showed either an American Sign Language (ASL) sign or a phonologically possible but nonlexical “nonsign,” and responded when the viewed action was formed with a particular handshape. Stimuli varied with respect to the factors of Lexicality, handshape Markedness, and Type, defined according to whether the action is performed with one or two hands and for two-handed stimuli, whether or not the action is symmetrical. Deaf signers performed faster and more accurately than did hearing nonsigners, and effects related to handshape Markedness and stimulus Type were observed in both groups. However, no effects or interactions related to Lexicality were seen. A further analysis restricted to the deaf group indicated that these results were not dependent upon subjects’ age of acquisition of ASL. This work provides new insights into the processes by which the handshape component of sign forms is recognised in a sign language, the role of language experience, and the extent to which these processes may or may not be considered specifically linguistic.

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

[2]  Shui-I Shih,et al.  Phonological priming in British Sign Language , 2006 .

[3]  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.

[4]  H. H. Clark.  The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research. , 1973 .

[5]  D. Swinney,et al.  On the Psychological Reality of the Phoneme: Perception, Identification, and Consciousness. , 1973 .

[6]  Ronnie B. Wilbur,et al.  American sign language: Linguistic and applied dimensions , 1987 .

[7]  Michael Garman,et al.  Psycholinguistics: Accessing the mental lexicon , 1990 .

[8]  Seppo P. Ahlfors,et al.  Lexical influences on speech perception: A Granger causality analysis of MEG and EEG source estimates , 2008, NeuroImage.

[9]  S. Butterfield,et al.  Phoneme Identification and the Lexicon , 2010 .

[10]  Wendy Sandler,et al.  Sign Language and Linguistic Universals: Entering the lexicon: lexicalization, backformation, and cross-modal borrowing , 2006 .

[11]  D. Corina,et al.  Phonological similarity in American Sign Language , 2002 .

[12]  D. Norris,et al.  Speeded detection of vowels: A cross-linguistic study , 1996, Perception & psychophysics.

[13]  S. Goldinger,et al.  Form-based priming in spoken word recognition: the roles of competition and bias. , 1992, Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory and Cognition.

[14]  Karen Emmorey,et al.  “Tip of the Fingers” Experiences by Deaf Signers , 2005, Psychological science.

[15]  Louisa M. Slowiaczek,et al.  Prelexical facilitation and lexical interference in auditory word recognition. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

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

[17]  M. A. Pitt,et al.  Lexical and Sublexical Feedback in Auditory Word Recognition , 1995, Cognitive Psychology.

[18]  R. M. Warren.  Perceptual Restoration of Missing Speech Sounds , 1970, Science.

[19]  M. Vitevitch.  Influence of onset density on spoken-word recognition. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[20]  R. Battison,et al.  Lexical Borrowing in American Sign Language , 1978 .

[21]  D Norris,et al.  Merging information in speech recognition: Feedback is never necessary , 2000, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[22]  J. Morais,et al.  Phonological priming between monosyllabic spoken words. , 1995 .

[23]  T. Bever,et al.  The nonperceptual reality of the phoneme. , 1970 .

[24]  Peter D. Eimas,et al.  Attention and the role of dual codes in phoneme monitoring , 1990 .

[25]  Roberta Michnick Golinkoff,et al.  The perception of handshapes in American Sign Language , 2005, Memory & cognition.

[26]  D. Brentari,et al.  Categorical perception in American Sign Language , 2003 .

[27]  James L. McClelland,et al.  The TRACE model of speech perception , 1986, Cognitive Psychology.

[28]  Robert Bayley,et al.  Phonological variation in American Sign Language: The case of 1 handshape , 2002, Language Variation and Change.

[29]  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 .

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

[31]  E. Klima.  The signs of language , 1979 .

[32]  K. Forster,et al.  Lexical Access and Naming Time. , 1973 .

[33]  Hugo Quené,et al.  On Multi-Level Modeling as a remedy against the “ Language-as-Fixed-Effect Fallacy ” , 2001 .

[34]  R. Jakobson.  Child Language, Aphasia and Phonological Universals , 1980 .

[35]  Anne Cutler,et al.  Detection of vowels and consonants with minimal acoustic variation , 1992, Speech Commun..

[36]  Anne Cutler,et al.  Monitoring sentence comprehension , 1979 .

[37]  Louisa M. Slowiaczek,et al.  Effects of phonological similarity on priming in auditory lexical decision , 1986, Memory & cognition.

[38]  Jean Ann,et al.  Frequency of Occurrence and Ease of Articulation of Sign Language Handshapes: The Taiwanese Example , 2006 .

[39]  Max Coltheart,et al.  Access to the internal lexicon , 1977 .

[40]  S Monsell,et al.  Competitor priming in spoken word recognition. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[41]  K. Emmorey,et al.  Differential Processing of Topographic and Referential Functions of Space , 2013 .

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

[43]  A G Samuel,et al.  An empirical and meta-analytic evaluation of the phoneme identification task. , 1993, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[44]  Ulrich H. Frauenfelder,et al.  Phoneme monitoring, syllable monitoring and lexical access. , 1981 .

[45]  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.

[46]  Manuel Carreiras,et al.  Lexical processing in Spanish Sign Language (LSE) , 2008 .

[47]  F Grosjean,et al.  Spoken word recognition processes and the gating paradigm , 1980, Perception & psychophysics.

[48]  D. Corina,et al.  Sign Language Processing and the Mirror Neuron System , 2006, Cortex.

[49]  D. Gow,et al.  Articulatory mediation of speech perception: A causal analysis of multi-modal imaging data , 2009, Cognition.

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