ArticleCognition2022
Are form priming effects phonological or perceptual? Electrophysiological evidence from American Sign Language.
Article in Cognition, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sign recognition: the effect of parameters and features in sign mispronunciations.Linguistics vanguard : multimodal online journal · 2024Article
- Taxonomic and thematic semantic relationships in picture naming as revealed by Laplacian-transformed event-related potentials.Psychophysiology · 2022Article
- Tracking the time course of sign recognition using ERP repetition priming.Psychophysiology · 2022Article
- New Perspectives on the Neurobiology of Sign Languages.Frontiers in communication · 2021Article
- The Neural Network for Sign Language Comprehension.Language and linguistics compassArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Form priming has been used to identify and demarcate the processes that underlie word and sign recognition. The facilitation that results from the prime and target being related in form is typically interpreted in terms of pre-activation of linguistic representations, with little to no consideration for the potential contributions of increased perceptual overlap between related pairs. Indeed, isolating the contribution of perceptual similarity is impossible in spoken languages; there are no listeners who can perceive speech but have not acquired a sound-based phonological system. Here, we compared the electrophysiological indices of form priming effects in American Sign Language between hearing non-signers (i.e., who had no visual-manual phonological system) and deaf signers. We reasoned that similarities in priming effects between groups would most likely be perceptual in nature, whereas priming effects that are specific to the signer group would reflect pre-activation of phonological representations. Behavior in the go/no-go repetition detection task was remarkably similar between groups. Priming in a pre-N400 window was also largely similar across groups, consistent with an early effect of perceptual similarity. However, priming effects diverged between groups during the subsequent N400 and post-N400 windows. Signers had more typical form priming effects and were especially attuned to handshape overlap, whereas non-signers did not exhibit an N400 component and were more sensitive to location overlap. We attribute this pattern to an interplay between perceptual similarity and phonological knowledge. Perceptual similarity contributes to early phonological priming effects, while phonological knowledge tunes sensitivity to linguistically relevant dimensions of perceptual similarity.
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.