Cargando…

Neurophysiological Correlates of Frequency, Concreteness, and Iconicity in American Sign Language

To investigate possible universal and modality-specific factors that influence the neurophysiological response during lexical processing, we recorded event-related potentials while a large group of deaf adults (n = 40) viewed 404 signs in American Sign Language (ASL) that varied in ASL frequency, co...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Emmorey, Karen, Winsler, Kurt, Midgley, Katherine J., Grainger, Jonathan, Holcomb, Phillip J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MIT Press 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7544239/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33043298
http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/nol_a_00012
_version_ 1783591819316035584
author Emmorey, Karen
Winsler, Kurt
Midgley, Katherine J.
Grainger, Jonathan
Holcomb, Phillip J.
author_facet Emmorey, Karen
Winsler, Kurt
Midgley, Katherine J.
Grainger, Jonathan
Holcomb, Phillip J.
author_sort Emmorey, Karen
collection PubMed
description To investigate possible universal and modality-specific factors that influence the neurophysiological response during lexical processing, we recorded event-related potentials while a large group of deaf adults (n = 40) viewed 404 signs in American Sign Language (ASL) that varied in ASL frequency, concreteness, and iconicity. Participants performed a go/no-go semantic categorization task (does the sign refer to people?) to videoclips of ASL signs (clips began with the signer’s hands at rest). Linear mixed-effects regression models were fit with per-participant, per-trial, and per-electrode data, allowing us to identify unique effects of each lexical variable. We observed an early effect of frequency (greater negativity for less frequent signs) beginning at 400 ms postvideo onset at anterior sites, which we interpreted as reflecting form-based lexical processing. This effect was followed by a more widely distributed posterior response that we interpreted as reflecting lexical-semantic processing. Paralleling spoken language, more concrete signs elicited greater negativities, beginning 600 ms postvideo onset with a wide scalp distribution. Finally, there were no effects of iconicity (except for a weak effect in the latest epochs; 1,000–1,200 ms), suggesting that iconicity does not modulate the neural response during sign recognition. Despite the perceptual and sensorimotoric differences between signed and spoken languages, the overall results indicate very similar neurophysiological processes underlie lexical access for both signs and words.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7544239
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher MIT Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-75442392020-10-08 Neurophysiological Correlates of Frequency, Concreteness, and Iconicity in American Sign Language Emmorey, Karen Winsler, Kurt Midgley, Katherine J. Grainger, Jonathan Holcomb, Phillip J. Neurobiol Lang (Camb) Research Articles To investigate possible universal and modality-specific factors that influence the neurophysiological response during lexical processing, we recorded event-related potentials while a large group of deaf adults (n = 40) viewed 404 signs in American Sign Language (ASL) that varied in ASL frequency, concreteness, and iconicity. Participants performed a go/no-go semantic categorization task (does the sign refer to people?) to videoclips of ASL signs (clips began with the signer’s hands at rest). Linear mixed-effects regression models were fit with per-participant, per-trial, and per-electrode data, allowing us to identify unique effects of each lexical variable. We observed an early effect of frequency (greater negativity for less frequent signs) beginning at 400 ms postvideo onset at anterior sites, which we interpreted as reflecting form-based lexical processing. This effect was followed by a more widely distributed posterior response that we interpreted as reflecting lexical-semantic processing. Paralleling spoken language, more concrete signs elicited greater negativities, beginning 600 ms postvideo onset with a wide scalp distribution. Finally, there were no effects of iconicity (except for a weak effect in the latest epochs; 1,000–1,200 ms), suggesting that iconicity does not modulate the neural response during sign recognition. Despite the perceptual and sensorimotoric differences between signed and spoken languages, the overall results indicate very similar neurophysiological processes underlie lexical access for both signs and words. MIT Press 2020-06-01 /pmc/articles/PMC7544239/ /pubmed/33043298 http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/nol_a_00012 Text en © 2020 Massachusetts Institute of Technology https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For a full description of the license, please visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Research Articles
Emmorey, Karen
Winsler, Kurt
Midgley, Katherine J.
Grainger, Jonathan
Holcomb, Phillip J.
Neurophysiological Correlates of Frequency, Concreteness, and Iconicity in American Sign Language
title Neurophysiological Correlates of Frequency, Concreteness, and Iconicity in American Sign Language
title_full Neurophysiological Correlates of Frequency, Concreteness, and Iconicity in American Sign Language
title_fullStr Neurophysiological Correlates of Frequency, Concreteness, and Iconicity in American Sign Language
title_full_unstemmed Neurophysiological Correlates of Frequency, Concreteness, and Iconicity in American Sign Language
title_short Neurophysiological Correlates of Frequency, Concreteness, and Iconicity in American Sign Language
title_sort neurophysiological correlates of frequency, concreteness, and iconicity in american sign language
topic Research Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7544239/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33043298
http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/nol_a_00012
work_keys_str_mv AT emmoreykaren neurophysiologicalcorrelatesoffrequencyconcretenessandiconicityinamericansignlanguage
AT winslerkurt neurophysiologicalcorrelatesoffrequencyconcretenessandiconicityinamericansignlanguage
AT midgleykatherinej neurophysiologicalcorrelatesoffrequencyconcretenessandiconicityinamericansignlanguage
AT graingerjonathan neurophysiologicalcorrelatesoffrequencyconcretenessandiconicityinamericansignlanguage
AT holcombphillipj neurophysiologicalcorrelatesoffrequencyconcretenessandiconicityinamericansignlanguage