Tracking the time course of sign recognition using ERP repetition priming

Ten things you should know about sign languages

The ten things you should know about sign languages are the following. 1) Sign languages have phonology and poetry. 2) Sign languages vary in their linguistic structure and family history, but share some typological features due to their shared biology (manual production). 3) Although there are many similarities between perceiving and producing speech and sign, the biology of language can impact aspects of processing. 4) Iconicity is pervasive in sign language lexicons and can play a role in language acquisition and processing. 5) Deaf and hard-of-hearing children are at risk for language deprivation. 6) Signers gesture when signing. 7) Sign language experience enhances some visual-spatial skills. 8) The same left hemisphere brain regions support both spoken and sign languages, but some neural regions are specific to sign language. 9) Bimodal bilinguals can code-blend, rather code-switch, which alters the nature of language control. 10) The emergence of new sign languages reveals patterns of language creation and evolution. These discoveries reveal how language modality does and does not affect language structure, acquisition, processing, use, and representation in the brain. Sign languages provide unique insights into human language that cannot be obtained by studying spoken languages alone.

Using transitional information in sign and gesture perception

For sign languages, transitional movements of the hands are fully visible and may be used to predict upcoming linguistic input. We investigated whether and how deaf signers and hearing nonsigners use transitional information to detect a target item in a string of either pseudosigns or grooming gestures, as well as whether motor imagery ability was related to this skill. Transitional information between items was either intact (Normal videos), digitally altered such that the hands were selectively blurred (Blurred videos), or edited to only show the frame prior to the transition which was frozen for the entire transition period, removing all transitional information (Static videos). For both pseudosigns and gestures, signers and nonsigners had faster target detection times for Blurred than Static videos, indicating similar use of movement transition cues. For linguistic stimuli (pseudosigns), only signers made use of transitional handshape information, as evidenced by faster target detection times for Normal than Blurred videos. This result indicates that signers can use their linguistic knowledge to interpret transitional handshapes to predict the upcoming signal. Signers and nonsigners did not differ in motor imagery abilities, but only non-signers exhibited evidence of using motor imagery as a prediction strategy. Overall, these results suggest that signers use transitional movement and handshape cues to facilitate sign recognition.

Predictive Processing in Sign Languages: A Systematic Review

The objective of this article was to review existing research to assess the evidence for predictive processing (PP) in sign language, the conditions under which it occurs, and the effects of language mastery (sign language as a first language, sign language as a second language, bimodal bilingualism) on the neural bases of PP. This review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) framework. We searched peer-reviewed electronic databases (SCOPUS, Web of Science, PubMed, ScienceDirect, and EBSCO host) and gray literature (dissertations in ProQuest). We also searched the reference lists of records selected for the review and forward citations to identify all relevant publications. We searched for records based on five criteria (original work, peer-reviewed, published in English, research topic related to PP or neural entrainment, and human sign language processing). To reduce the risk of bias, the remaining two authors with expertise in sign language processing and a variety of research methods reviewed the results. Disagreements were resolved through extensive discussion. In the final review, 7 records were included, of which 5 were published articles and 2 were dissertations. The reviewed records provide evidence for PP in signing populations, although the underlying mechanism in the visual modality is not clear. The reviewed studies addressed the motor simulation proposals, neural basis of PP, as well as the development of PP. All studies used dynamic sign stimuli. Most of the studies focused on semantic prediction. The question of the mechanism for the interaction between one’s sign language competence (L1 vs. L2 vs. bimodal bilingual) and PP in the manual-visual modality remains unclear, primarily due to the scarcity of participants with varying degrees of language dominance. There is a paucity of evidence for PP in sign languages, especially for frequency-based, phonetic (articulatory), and syntactic prediction. However, studies published to date indicate that Deaf native/native-like L1 signers predict linguistic information during sign language processing, suggesting that PP is an amodal property of language processing.