Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31698097›Full record

ArticleBrain and language2020

Age of acquisition effects differ across linguistic domains in sign language: EEG evidence.

Evie A Malaia, Julia Krebs, Dietmar Roehm, Ronnie B Wilbur

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Brain and language, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Acquisition of Sign Languages.Annual review of linguistics · 2021
    Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Evie A MalaiaDepartment of Communicative Disorders, University of Alabama, Speech and Hearing Clinic, 700 Johnny Stallings Drive, Tuscaloosa, AL 35401, USA. Electronic address: eamalaia@ua.edu.
Julia KrebsResearch Group Neurobiology of Language, Department of Linguistics, University of Salzburg, Erzabt-Klotz-Straße 1, 5020 Salzburg, Austria; Centre for Cognitive Neuroscience (CCNS), University of Salzburg, Erzabt-Klotz-Straße 1, 5020 Salzburg, Austria.
Dietmar RoehmResearch Group Neurobiology of Language, Department of Linguistics, University of Salzburg, Erzabt-Klotz-Straße 1, 5020 Salzburg, Austria; Centre for Cognitive Neuroscience (CCNS), University of Salzburg, Erzabt-Klotz-Straße 1, 5020 Salzburg, Austria.
Ronnie B WilburDepartment of Linguistics, Purdue University, Lyles-Porter Hall, West Lafayette, IN 47907-2122, USA; Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, Purdue University, Lyles-Porter Hall, West Lafayette, IN 47907-2122, USA.

Funding

Modeling the Nonmanuals in American Sign LanguageR01DC005241 · NIDCD · PURDUE UNIVERSITY WEST LAFAYETTE · PI WILBUR, RONNIE B · 2004 to 2008
$2.4M
NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC005241
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

One of the key questions in the study of human language acquisition is the extent to which the development of neural processing networks for different components of language are modulated by exposure to linguistic stimuli. Sign languages offer a unique perspective on this issue, because prelingually Deaf children who receive access to complex linguistic input later in life provide a window into brain maturation in the absence of language, and subsequent neuroplasticity of neurolinguistic networks during late language learning. While the duration of sensitive periods of acquisition of linguistic subsystems (sound, vocabulary, and syntactic structure) is well established on the basis of L2 acquisition in spoken language, for sign languages, the relative timelines for development of neural processing networks for linguistic sub-domains are unknown. We examined neural responses of a group of Deaf signers who received access to signed input at varying ages to three linguistic phenomena at the levels of classifier signs, syntactic structure, and information structure. The amplitude of the N400 response to the marked word order condition negatively correlated with the age of acquisition for syntax and information structure, indicating increased cognitive load in these conditions. Additionally, the combination of behavioral and neural data suggested that late learners preferentially relied on classifiers over word order for meaning extraction. This suggests that late acquisition of sign language significantly increases cognitive load during analysis of syntax and information structure, but not word-level meaning.

Indexed as

AgingElectroencephalographyLanguage DevelopmentLinguisticsSign LanguageAdultDeafnessEvoked PotentialsFemaleHumansLearningMaleMiddle AgedNeuronal PlasticityVocabularyAge of acquisitionN400PlasticitySemanticsSign languageSyntaxWord order

Identifiers

PMID31698097
PMCPMC6934356

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.