ArticleJournal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance2020
The sign superiority effect: Lexical status facilitates peripheral handshape identification for deaf signers.
Article in Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Gaze dynamics of cued speech perception.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Parents align American Sign Language (ASL) input with deaf children's gaze.Language acquisition · 2026Article
- Effect of sign language learning on temporal resolution of visual attention.Journal of vision · 2025Article
- Fingerspelling and Its Role in Translanguaging.Languages (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Deaf signers exhibit an enhanced ability to process information in their peripheral visual field, particularly the motion of dots or orientation of lines. Does their experience processing sign language, which involves identifying meaningful visual forms across the visual field, contribute to this enhancement? We tested whether deaf signers recruit language knowledge to facilitate peripheral identification through a sign superiority effect (i.e., better handshape discrimination in a sign than a pseudosign) and whether such a superiority effect might be responsible for perceptual enhancements relative to hearing individuals (i.e., a decrease in the effect of eccentricity on perceptual identification). Deaf signers and hearing signers or nonsigners identified the handshape presented within a static ASL fingerspelling letter (Experiment 1), fingerspelled sequence (Experiment 2), or sign or pseudosign (Experiment 3) presented in the near or far periphery. Accuracy on all tasks was higher for deaf signers than hearing nonsigning participants and was higher in the near than the far periphery. Across experiments, there were different patterns of interactions between hearing status and eccentricity depending on the type of stimulus; deaf signers showed an effect of eccentricity for static fingerspelled letters, fingerspelled sequences, and pseudosigns but not for ASL signs. In contrast, hearing nonsigners showed an effect of eccentricity for all stimuli. Thus, deaf signers recruit lexical knowledge to facilitate peripheral perceptual identification, and this perceptual enhancement may derive from their extensive experience processing visual linguistic information in the periphery during sign comprehension. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.