The Use of Visual Feedback During Signing: Evidence From Signers With Impaired Vision

Emmorey, Karen; Korpics, Franco; Petronio, Karen

doi:10.1093/deafed/enn020

Cited by 25 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Sign language is a skill that involves tactile-visual integration, particularly when monitoring language output (Emmorey et al, 2008a,b). Speakers auditorily monitor their language output, but signers do not look directly at their hands and must integrate proprioceptive and tactile sensory information with visual input from the periphery of vision to monitor their language output.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Morphology of the Insula in Relation to Hearing Status and Sign Language Experience

Allen

Emmorey²,

Bruss³

et al. 2008

J. Neurosci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigated whether auditory deprivation and/or sign language exposure during development alters the macroscopic neuroanatomy of the human insula. Volumetric analyses were based on MRI data from 25 congenitally deaf subjects who were native users of American Sign Language (ASL), 25 hearing subjects with no knowledge of ASL, and 16 hearing subjects who grew up in deaf families and were native ASL signers. Significant variation in insula volume was associated with both hearing status and sign language experience. Compared with both hearing groups, deaf subjects exhibited a significant increase in the amount of gray matter in the left posterior insular lobule, which we hypothesize may be related to the dependence on lip-reading and articulatory-based (rather than auditory-based) representations of speech for deaf individuals. Both deaf and hearing signers exhibited an increased volume of white matter in the right insula compared with hearing nonsigners. We hypothesize that the distinct morphology of the right insula for ASL signers may arise from enhanced connectivity resulting from an increased reliance on cross-modal sensory integration in sign language compared with spoken language.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Morphology of the Insula in Relation to Hearing Status and Sign Language Experience

Allen

Emmorey²,

Bruss³

et al. 2008

J. Neurosci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Unlike non-linguistic reaching and grasping actions, sign language production is not visually guided – signers do not visually track their hands. Rather, signers rely on internal somatosensory feedback to catch errors and control sign production (Emmorey, Bosworth, & Kraljic, 2009; Emmorey, Korpics, & Petronio, 2009). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The neural circuits recruited for the production of signs and fingerspelled words

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Signing differs from typical non-linguistic hand actions because movements are not visually guided, finger movements are complex (particularly for fingerspelling), and signs are not produced as holistic gestures. We used positron emission tomography to investigate the neural circuits involved in the production of American Sign Language (ASL). Different types of signs (one-handed (articulated in neutral space), two-handed (neutral space), and one-handed body-anchored signs) were elicited by asking deaf native signers to produce sign translations of English words. Participants also fingerspelled (one-handed) printed English words. For the baseline task, participants indicated whether a word contained a descending letter. Fingerspelling engaged ipsilateral motor cortex and cerebellar cortex in contrast to both one-handed signs and the descender baseline task, which may reflect greater timing demands and complexity of handshape sequences required for fingerspelling. Greater activation in the visual word form area was also observed for fingerspelled words compared to one-handed signs. Body-anchored signs engaged bilateral superior parietal cortex to a greater extent than the descender baseline task and neutral space signs, reflecting the motor control and proprioceptive monitoring required to direct the hand toward a specific location on the body. Less activation in parts of the motor circuit was observed for two-handed signs compared to one-handed signs, possibly because, for half of the signs, handshape and movement goals were spread across the two limbs. Finally, the conjunction analysis comparing each sign type with the descender baseline task revealed common activation in the supramarginal gyrus bilaterally, which we interpret as reflecting phonological retrieval and encoding processes.

show abstract

“…Recently, Emmorey, Korpics, and Petronio (in press) found that Deaf1 signers with tunnel vision due to Usher syndrome (a form of retinitis pigmentosa that causes loss of peripheral vision) consistently produced American Sign Language (ASL) within a smaller signing space near their face compared to normally sighted signers. Arena, Finlay, and Woll (2007) also reported that the size of signing space for British Sign Language was directly related to the size of a signer’s visual field for those with Usher syndrome.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The influence of visual feedback and register changes on sign language production: A kinematic study with deaf signers

Emmorey

Gertsberg

Korpics

et al. 2009

Applied Psycholinguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Speakers monitor their speech output by listening to their own voice. However, signers do not look directly at their hands and cannot see their own face. We investigated the importance of a visual perceptual loop for sign language monitoring by examining whether changes in visual input alter sign production. Deaf signers produced American Sign Language (ASL) signs within a carrier phrase under five conditions: blindfolded, wearing tunnel-vision goggles, normal (citation) signing, shouting, and informal signing. Three-dimensional movement trajectories were obtained using an Optotrak Certus system. Informally produced signs were shorter with less vertical movement. Shouted signs were displaced forward and to the right and were produced within a larger volume of signing space, with greater velocity, greater distance traveled, and a longer duration. Tunnel vision caused signers to produce less movement within the vertical dimension of signing space, but blind and citation signing did not differ significantly on any measure, except duration. Thus, signers do not “sign louder” when they cannot see themselves, but they do alter their sign production when vision is restricted. We hypothesize that visual feedback serves primarily to fine-tune the size of signing space rather than as input to a comprehension-based monitor.

show abstract

The Use of Visual Feedback During Signing: Evidence From Signers With Impaired Vision

Cited by 25 publications

References 11 publications

Morphology of the Insula in Relation to Hearing Status and Sign Language Experience

Morphology of the Insula in Relation to Hearing Status and Sign Language Experience

The neural circuits recruited for the production of signs and fingerspelled words

The influence of visual feedback and register changes on sign language production: A kinematic study with deaf signers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About