Tactile Signing with One-Handed Perception

Mesch, Johanna

doi:10.1353/sls.2013.0005

Cited by 32 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…TS002 has used TSTS for 10 years. She has a preference for one-handed perception of signs (see Mesch, 2013). The two TSTS interpreters (hereafter I001 and I002) are aged 49 and 58 years old, the same age as the two deafblind women.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conveying Environmental Information to Deafblind People: A Study of Tactile Sign Language Interpreting

Gabarró-López

Mesch

2020

Front. Educ.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many deafblind people use tactile sign language and interpreters in their daily lives. Because of their hearing and sight status, the role of interpreters does not only involve translating the content expressed by other deaf or hearing people, but it also involves conveying environmental information (i.e., multimodal communication regarding what is happening at a given moment to be able to understand the context). This paper aims to contribute to the field of tactile sign language interpreting by describing how two Tactile Swedish Sign Language interpreters convey environmental information to two deafblind women in a particular situation, that is, a guided visit to a cathedral by a hearing Norwegian speaker. We expect to find various strategies including the use of haptic signs (i.e., a system of signs articulated on the body of the deafblind person aimed to provide environmental and interactional information). After summarizing the small amount of existing research on the issue to date, we present our data and how they were annotated. Our analysis shows that a variety of strategies are used, including Tactile Swedish Sign Language, using locative points to show locations with some type of contact with the body of deafblind individuals, depicting shapes on the palm of the hand of deafblind individuals, using objects to depict shapes, touching elements of the cathedral with the hands or with the feet such as surfaces, and walking around. Some of these strategies are more frequent than others and some strategies are also used in combination, whereas others are used in isolation. We did not observe any use of haptic signs to convey environmental information in our data, which calls for further research on which criteria apply to use this strategy in a particular situation.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conveying Environmental Information to Deafblind People: A Study of Tactile Sign Language Interpreting

Gabarró-López

Mesch

2020

Front. Educ.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The tactile sign language used in hand-over-hand signing is often a slightly modified version of the local visual sign language. Signs can also be placed on the body (on body-signing) (Mesch, 2001, 2013; O’Brien & Steffen, 1996). In the literature, it is further reported that congenitally deafblind children often develop non-conventional and idiosyncratic tactile signs in communication with their parents/teachers (Souriau, Rødbroe, & Janssen, 2009).…”

Section: Different Communication Modesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Communication and language profiles of children with congenital deafblindness

Dammeyer

Larsen

2016

British Journal of Visual Impairment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To be born deaf and blind creates both communicative and language acquisition barriers for a child. Although case studies, research, and practical reports have described the severe communicative delay that children with congenital deafblindness (CDB) often experience, to date, no population studies have given a systematic overview of the characteristics of communication, language use, and language acquisition. This study investigates modes of communication and level of language acquisition among 71 children with CDB using the Rowland Communication Matrix and a questionnaire form. Results show heterogeneity in use of communication mode, vocabulary, and level of language development. Communication was distributed across modalities with 23% using tactile language, 32% oral language, and 39% visual sign language. With regard to the level of language acquisition, 41% used pre-verbal communication, 42% verbal communication (tactile, visual, or oral) but with delay, and 18% verbal communication (tactile, visual, or oral) without any delay. Similar heterogeneity was reflected on vocabulary count and score on the Rowland Communication Matrix. Children with CDB are not a uniform group, and more research is needed in order to map out the diversity found.

show abstract

“…For communicating in a tactile sign language, the receiver touches the hand(s) of the person who is producing the signs ( Mesch, 2001 ). In some communities and their tactile sign languages, there is a stronger preference to follow the dominant hand only, and the positions of the hands differ between languages ( Mesch, 2011 , 2013 ; Willoughby et al, 2018 ). More recent research has begun to examine the emergence of a new tactile language system in the United States, called Protactile .…”

Section: Subsections Relevant For the Subjectmentioning

confidence: 99%

Somatosensory processing in deaf and deafblind individuals: How does the brain adapt as a function of sensory and linguistic experience? A critical review

Villwock

Grin²

2022

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How do deaf and deafblind individuals process touch? This question offers a unique model to understand the prospects and constraints of neural plasticity. Our brain constantly receives and processes signals from the environment and combines them into the most reliable information content. The nervous system adapts its functional and structural organization according to the input, and perceptual processing develops as a function of individual experience. However, there are still many unresolved questions regarding the deciding factors for these changes in deaf and deafblind individuals, and so far, findings are not consistent. To date, most studies have not taken the sensory and linguistic experiences of the included participants into account. As a result, the impact of sensory deprivation vs. language experience on somatosensory processing remains inconclusive. Even less is known about the impact of deafblindness on brain development. The resulting neural adaptations could be even more substantial, but no clear patterns have yet been identified. How do deafblind individuals process sensory input? Studies on deafblindness have mostly focused on single cases or groups of late-blind individuals. Importantly, the language backgrounds of deafblind communities are highly variable and include the usage of tactile languages. So far, this kind of linguistic experience and its consequences have not been considered in studies on basic perceptual functions. Here, we will provide a critical review of the literature, aiming at identifying determinants for neuroplasticity and gaps in our current knowledge of somatosensory processing in deaf and deafblind individuals.

show abstract

Tactile Signing with One-Handed Perception

Cited by 32 publications

References 17 publications

Conveying Environmental Information to Deafblind People: A Study of Tactile Sign Language Interpreting

Conveying Environmental Information to Deafblind People: A Study of Tactile Sign Language Interpreting

Communication and language profiles of children with congenital deafblindness

Somatosensory processing in deaf and deafblind individuals: How does the brain adapt as a function of sensory and linguistic experience? A critical review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About