1 |
Word representation and processing in deaf readers: Evidence from ERPs and eye-tracking
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
2 |
Lexical selection in bimodal bilinguals: ERP evidence from picture-word interference ...
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
3 |
Lexical selection in bimodal bilinguals: ERP evidence from picture-word interference ...
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
4 |
How are iconic and non-iconic signs integrated into a lexicon for adult learners? ...
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
5 |
The ASL-LEX 2.0 Project: A Database of Lexical and Phonological Properties for 2,723 Signs in American Sign Language
|
|
|
|
In: J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ (2021)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
6 |
The organization of the American Sign Language lexicon: Comparing one- and two-parameter ERP phonological priming effects across tasks
|
|
|
|
In: Brain Lang (2021)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
7 |
Environmentally-Coupled Signs and Gestures
|
|
|
|
In: J Cogn (2021)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
8 |
Masked ERP repetition priming in deaf and hearing readers
|
|
|
|
In: Brain Lang (2021)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
9 |
Teaching & Learning Guide for: The neurocognitive basis of skilled reading in prelingually and profoundly deaf adults
|
|
|
|
In: Lang Linguist Compass (2021)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
10 |
The neurocognitive basis of skilled reading in prelingually and profoundly deaf adults
|
|
|
|
In: Lang Linguist Compass (2021)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
11 |
Picture-naming in American Sign Language: an electrophysiological study of the effects of iconicity and structured alignment ...
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
12 |
Picture-naming in American Sign Language: an electrophysiological study of the effects of iconicity and structured alignment ...
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
13 |
ASL-LEX 2.0 Project: A database of lexical and phonological properties for 2723 signs in American Sign Language ...
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
14 |
Neurophysiological Correlates of Frequency, Concreteness, and Iconicity in American Sign Language
|
|
|
|
In: Neurobiol Lang (Camb) (2020)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
15 |
Cross-modal translation priming and iconicity effects in deaf signers and hearing learners of American Sign Language
|
|
|
|
In: Biling (Camb Engl) (2020)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
16 |
Unique N170 signatures to words and faces in deaf ASL signers reflect experience-specific adaptations during early visual processing
|
|
|
|
In: Neuropsychologia (2020)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
17 |
Multimodal imaging of brain reorganization in hearing late learners of sign language
|
|
|
|
In: Hum Brain Mapp (2020)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
18 |
Visual-Spatial Perspective-Taking in Spatial Scenes and in American Sign Language
|
|
|
|
In: J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ (2020)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
19 |
Sign Language: How the Brain Represents Phonology without Sound
|
|
|
|
In: Curr Biol (2020)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
20 |
Shadowing in the Manual Modality
|
|
|
|
In: Acta Psychol (Amst) (2020)
|
|
Abstract:
Motor simulation has emerged as a mechanism for both predictive action perception and language comprehension. By deriving a motor command, individuals can predictively represent the outcome of an unfolding action as a forward model. Evidence of simulation can be seen via improved participant performance for stimuli that conform to the participant’s individual characteristics (an egocentric bias). There is little evidence, however, from individuals for whom action and language take place in the same modality: sign language users. The present study asked signers and nonsigners to shadow (perform actions in tandem with various models), and the delay between the model and participant (“lag time”) served as an indicator of the strength of the predictive model (shorter lag time = more robust model). This design allowed us to examine the role of (a) motor simulation during action prediction, (b) linguistic status in predictive representations (i.e., pseudosigns vs. grooming gestures), and (c) language experience in generating predictions (i.e., signers vs. nonsigners). An egocentric bias was only observed under limited circumstances: when nonsigners began shadowing grooming gestures. The data do not support strong motor simulation proposals, and instead highlight the role of (a) production fluency and (b) manual rhythm for signer productions. Signers showed significantly faster lag times for the highly skilled pseudosign model and increased temporal regularity (i.e., lower standard deviations) compared to nonsigners. We conclude sign language experience may (a) reduce reliance on motor simulation during action observation, (b) attune users to prosodic cues (c) and induce temporal regularities during action production.
|
|
Keyword:
Article
|
|
URL: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32531500 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2020.103092 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7387226/
|
|
BASE
|
|
Hide details
|
|
|
|