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

Abstract

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 signlanguage 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 ASL sign or a phonologically possible but non-lexical "non-sign," and responded when the viewed action was formed with a particular handshape. Stimuli varied with respect to the factors of Lexicality, handshape Markedness (Battison, 1978), 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 hearing non-signers, 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 recognized in a sign language, the role of language experience, and the extent to which these processes may or may not be considered specifically linguistic.

Spoken Language Activation Alters Subsequent Sign Language Activation in L2 Learners of American Sign Language

“…Similar to native signers, bimodal bilinguals (and M2L2 learners of sign language) identify location with few errors in perception (Bochner et al 2011;Williams and Newman 2016a). Unlike native signers, bimodal bilinguals and M2L2 learners have higher error rates for handshape but perceive it early in sign recognition, relatively at the same time as location (Morford and Carlson 2011;Grosvald et al 2012;Morford et al 2008;Williams and Newman 2016b). In summary, previous studies have shown that lexical access in sign language occurs at both sublexical and lexical stages of processing, but may differ based on sublexical features (i.e., handshape or location) and on language experience.…”

Monitoring Different Phonological Parameters of Sign Language Engages the Same Cortical Language Network but Distinctive Perceptual Ones

“…This is a phoneme monitoring task (cf. Grosvald et al, 2012) for signers but can be performed as a purely perceptual matching task by nonsigners. Performance in the task was evaluated by calculating an adapted d 0 .…”

“…Despite these similarities, it is not clear to what extent the processing of the specific phonological parameters of sign languages, such as handshape, location, and movement, recruits functionally different neural networks. Investigation of the mechanisms of sign phonology have often focused separately on sign handshape (Andin, Rönnberg, & Rudner, 2014;Andin et al, 2013;Grosvald et al, 2012;Wilson & Emmorey, 1997) and sign location (Colin, Zuinen, Bayard, & Leybaert, 2013;MacSweeney, Waters, et al, 2008). Studies that have compared these two phonological parameters identified differences in comprehension and production psycholinguistically (e.g., Orfanidou, Adam, McQueen, & Morgan, 2009;Carreiras, Gutiérrez-Sigut, Baquero, & Corina, 2008;Dye & Shih, 2006;Emmorey, McCullough, & Brentari, 2003), developmentally (e.g., Morgan, Barrett-Jones, & Stoneham, 2007;Karnopp, 2002;Siedlecki & Bonvillian, 1993), and neuropsychologically (Corina, 2000).…”

“…Phonology is generally considered to be arbitrarily related to semantics. In signed languages, however, phonology is not always independent of meaning (for an overview, see Gutiérrez, Williams, Grosvald, & Corina, 2012), and this relation seems to influence language processing (Grosvald, Lachaud, & Corina, 2012;Thompson, Vinson, & Vigliocco, 2010) and its neural underpinning (Rudner, Karlsson, Gunnarsson, & Rönnberg, 2013;Gutiérrez, Müller, Baus, & Carreiras, 2012).…”

Differential activity in Heschl's gyrus between deaf and hearing individuals is due to auditory deprivation rather than language modality

“…This is a phoneme monitoring task (cf. Grosvald et al, 2012) for signers, but can be performed as a purely perceptual matching task by non-signers. Performance in the task was evaluated by calculating reaction times and d′.…”