Effects of rate of presentation on the reception of American Sign Language.

Previous research on the visual reception of fingerspelled English suggests that communication rates are limited primarily by constraints on production. Studies of artificially accelerated fingerspelling indicate that reception of fingerspelled sentences is highly accurate for rates up to 2 to 3 times those that can be produced naturally. The current paper reports on the results of a comparable study of the reception of American Sign Language (ASL). Fourteen native deaf ASL signers participated in an experiment in which videotaped productions of isolated ASL signs or ASL sentences were presented at normal playback speed and at speeds of 2, 3, 4, and 6 times normal speed. For isolated signs, identification scores decreased from 95% correct to 46% correct across the range of rates that were tested; for sentences, the ability to identify key signs decreased from 88% to 19% over the range of rates tested. The results indicate a breakdown in processing at around 2.5-3 times the normal rate as evidenced both by a substantial drop in intelligibility in this region and by a shift in error patterns away from semantic and toward formational. These results parallel those obtained in previous studies of the intelligibility of the auditory reception of time-compressed speech and the visual reception of accelerated fingerspelling. Taken together, these results suggest a modality-independent upper limit to language processing.

[1]  F Grosjean,et al.  A study of timing in a manual and a spoken language: American sign language and English , 1979, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[2]  Diane C. Lillo-Martin,et al.  Universal Grammar and American Sign Language: Setting the Null Argument Parameters , 1991 .

[3]  T CAWTHORNE,et al.  Hearing and deafness. , 1961, London Clinic medical journal.

[4]  Elissa L. Newport,et al.  Maturational Constraints on Language Learning , 1990, Cogn. Sci..

[5]  G W Heiman,et al.  Intelligibility and comprehension of time compressed sign language narratives , 1981, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[6]  G W Heiman,et al.  Word intelligibility decrements and the comprehension of time-compressed speech , 1986, Perception & psychophysics.

[7]  C M Reed,et al.  A study of the tactual and visual reception of fingerspelling. , 1990, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[8]  G. A. Miller,et al.  The intelligibility of speech as a function of the context of the test materials. , 1951, Journal of experimental psychology.

[9]  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 .

[10]  D S Beasley,et al.  Intelligibility of time-compressed sentential stimuli. , 1980, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[11]  C M Reed,et al.  A study of the tactual reception of sign language. , 1995, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[12]  U. Bellugi,et al.  A comparison of sign language and spoken language , 1972 .

[13]  Scott K. Liddell.  THINK AND BELIEVE: SEQUENTIALITY IN AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE , 1984 .

[14]  Ursula Bellugi,et al.  Remembering in signs , 1975, Cognition.

[15]  G. Fairbanks,et al.  Method for time of frequency compression-expansion of speech , 1954 .

[16]  W. Stokoe,et al.  A dictionary of American sign language on linguistic principles , 1965 .

[17]  W. Rintelmann,et al.  Intelligibility of time-compressed CNC monosyllables. , 1972, Journal of speech and hearing research.

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

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

[20]  T. Sticht,et al.  Review of research on the intelligibility and comprehension of accelerated speech. , 1969, Psychological bulletin.