ArticleMemory & cognition2025
Tracking effects of age of sign language acquisition and phonology in American Sign Language sentence processing.
Article in Memory & cognition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Using Eye Tracking to Examine Effects of Overt Localization on Referential Processing in German Sign Language Sentence Processing.Journal of psycholinguistic research · 2026Article
- Production of real signs but not pseudosigns affected by age of acquisition in American Sign Language.Memory & cognition · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Processing sign language involves activation of phonological features of signs. Previous research provides evidence for effects of age of sign language acquisition as well as amount and type of phonological relatedness during processing of single signs, but it is unknown how these factors affect sentence-level sign processing. This paper presents a phonological priming eye tracking study of American Sign Language (ASL) processing, in which we systematically vary the degree and type of phonological relatedness in prime-target sign pairs embedded in ASL sentences. We tested degree of relatedness by using sign pairs sharing either one or two out of three phonological parameters. We tested type of relatedness by using signs that were phonologically related in all possible combinations of the parameters handshape, location, and movement. Participants were exposed to sign language either early (before the age of five years) or late (after the age of five years), allowing us to explore how age of sign language acquisition impacts activation of phonological features of signs. Late signers were more affected by the degree of relatedness than early signers; primes that shared any information with the target led to increased time to identify the target, regardless of the specific parameter(s) that overlapped. There was a high degree of variability for type of relatedness, but sign pairs that shared location were particularly salient. Group differences suggested varying sensitivities to phonological information in early and late signers. Our study emphasizes that phonological relatedness should be carefully controlled when examining sign processing in signers differing in their language backgrounds.
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.