Visual Feedback and Self-monitoring of Sign Language

Overview

Journal J Mem Lang

Publisher Elsevier

Date 2010 Feb 18

PMID 20161058

Citations 16

Authors

Karen Emmorey

Rain Bosworth

Tanya Kraljic

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

The perceptual loop theory of self-monitoring posits that auditory speech output is parsed by the comprehension system. For sign language, however, visual input from one's own signing is distinct from visual input received from another's signing. Two experiments investigated the role of visual feedback in the production of American Sign Language (ASL). Experiment 1 revealed that signers were poor at recognizing ASL signs when viewed as they would appear during self-produced signing. Experiment 2 showed that the absence or blurring of visual feedback did not affect production performance when deaf signers learned to reproduce signs from Russian Sign Language, and production performance of hearing non-signers was slightly worse with visual feedback. Signers may rely primarily on somatosensory feedback when monitoring language output, and if the perceptual loop theory is to be maintained, the comprehension system must be able to parse a somatosensory signal as well as an external perceptual signal for both sign and speech.

Citing Articles

Feeling signs: motor encoding enhances sign language learning in hearing adults.

Morett L, Ciesla M, Bray M, Emmorey K Stud Second Lang Acquis. 2024; 46(3):933-945.

PMID: 39524403 PMC: 11548845. DOI: 10.1017/s0272263124000196.

Viewing angle matters in British Sign Language processing.

Watkins F, Abdlkarim D, Winter B, Thompson R Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):1043.

PMID: 38200108 PMC: 10781993. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-51330-1.

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

Villwock A, Grin K Front Psychol. 2022; 13:938842.

PMID: 36324786 PMC: 9618853. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.938842.

Phonological development in American Sign Language-signing children: Insights from pseudosign repetition tasks.

Gu S, Pichler D, Kozak L, Lillo-Martin D Front Psychol. 2022; 13:921047.

PMID: 36160535 PMC: 9496651. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.921047.

The signing body: extensive sign language practice shapes the size of hands and face.

Mora L, Sedda A, Esteban T, Cocchini G Exp Brain Res. 2021; 239(7):2233-2249.

PMID: 34028597 PMC: 8282562. DOI: 10.1007/s00221-021-06121-9.

References

Forrest K, Abbas P, Zimmermann G . Effects of white noise masking and low pass filtering on speech kinematics. J Speech Hear Res. 1986; 29(4):549-62. DOI: 10.1044/jshr.2904.549. View

Guenther F, Hampson M, Johnson D . A theoretical investigation of reference frames for the planning of speech movements. Psychol Rev. 1998; 105(4):611-33. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295x.105.4.611-633. View

Jones J, Munhall K . Learning to produce speech with an altered vocal tract: the role of auditory feedback. J Acoust Soc Am. 2003; 113(1):532-43. DOI: 10.1121/1.1529670. View

Indefrey P, Levelt W . The spatial and temporal signatures of word production components. Cognition. 2004; 92(1-2):101-44. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2002.06.001. View

Slevc L, Ferreira V . Halting in Single Word Production: A Test of the Perceptual Loop Theory of Speech Monitoring. J Mem Lang. 2007; 54(4):515-540. PMC: 2000858. DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2005.11.002. View

Wilson M, Emmorey K . A visuospatial "phonological loop" in working memory: evidence from American Sign Language. Mem Cognit. 1997; 25(3):313-20. DOI: 10.3758/bf03211287. View

Petitto L, Zatorre R, Gauna K, Nikelski E, Dostie D, Evans A . Speech-like cerebral activity in profoundly deaf people processing signed languages: implications for the neural basis of human language. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000; 97(25):13961-6. PMC: 17683. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.97.25.13961. View

Pellijeff A, Bonilha L, Morgan P, McKenzie K, Jackson S . Parietal updating of limb posture: an event-related fMRI study. Neuropsychologia. 2006; 44(13):2685-90. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.01.009. View

Emmorey K, Gertsberg N, Korpics F, Wright C . The influence of visual feedback and register changes on sign language production: A kinematic study with deaf signers. Appl Psycholinguist. 2010; 30(1):187-203. PMC: 2726740. DOI: 10.1017/S0142716408090085. View

10.

San Jose-Robertson L, Corina D, Ackerman D, Guillemin A, Braun A . Neural systems for sign language production: mechanisms supporting lexical selection, phonological encoding, and articulation. Hum Brain Mapp. 2004; 23(3):156-67. PMC: 6871865. DOI: 10.1002/hbm.20054. View

11.

Masson M . Using confidence intervals for graphically based data interpretation. Can J Exp Psychol. 2003; 57(3):203-20. DOI: 10.1037/h0087426. View

12.

Buccino G, Binkofski F, Fink G, Fadiga L, Fogassi L, Gallese V . Action observation activates premotor and parietal areas in a somatotopic manner: an fMRI study. Eur J Neurosci. 2001; 13(2):400-4. View

13.

Emmorey K, Thompson R, Colvin R . Eye gaze during comprehension of American Sign Language by native and beginning signers. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 2008; 14(2):237-43. DOI: 10.1093/deafed/enn037. View

14.

Galantucci B, Fowler C, Turvey M . The motor theory of speech perception reviewed. Psychon Bull Rev. 2006; 13(3):361-77. PMC: 2746041. DOI: 10.3758/bf03193857. View

15.

Emmorey K, Korpics F, Petronio K . The use of visual feedback during signing: evidence from signers with impaired vision. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 2008; 14(1):99-104. PMC: 2637109. DOI: 10.1093/deafed/enn020. View

16.

Atkinson J . The perceptual characteristics of voice-hallucinations in deaf people: insights into the nature of subvocal thought and sensory feedback loops. Schizophr Bull. 2006; 32(4):701-8. PMC: 2632268. DOI: 10.1093/schbul/sbj063. View

17.

Anstis S . Letter: A chart demonstrating variations in acuity with retinal position. Vision Res. 1974; 14(7):589-92. DOI: 10.1016/0042-6989(74)90049-2. View

18.

MacDonald P, Paus T . The role of parietal cortex in awareness of self-generated movements: a transcranial magnetic stimulation study. Cereb Cortex. 2003; 13(9):962-7. DOI: 10.1093/cercor/13.9.962. View

19.

Fadiga L, Craighero L, Buccino G, Rizzolatti G . Speech listening specifically modulates the excitability of tongue muscles: a TMS study. Eur J Neurosci. 2002; 15(2):399-402. DOI: 10.1046/j.0953-816x.2001.01874.x. View

20.

Wolpert D, Goodbody S, Husain M . Maintaining internal representations: the role of the human superior parietal lobe. Nat Neurosci. 1999; 1(6):529-33. DOI: 10.1038/2245. View