ArticleNeuropsychologia2025
Assessing sensitivity to semantic and syntactic information in deaf readers: An ERP study.
Article in Neuropsychologia, 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.
- Subliminal Semantic Processing of Grasping Actions: Evidence from ERP Measures of Action-Verb Priming.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Embodied Cognition of Manipulative Actions: Subliminal Grasping Semantics Enhance Using-Action Recognition.Brain sciences · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
An ERP study by Mehravari et al. (2017) found deaf and hearing readers had similar N400 effects to semantic violations, but only hearing readers showed a P600 effect to verb agreement violations. To assess whether lack of sensitivity to agreement was due to early language deprivation, we presented the same stimuli (and a phrase structure violation condition) to deaf readers with early ASL exposure and a reading-matched hearing group. We also examined N400 "wrap up" effects for sentence final words. Both groups exhibited an N400 effect for semantic violations (larger negativities for errors), although the effect was unexpectedly weak for hearing readers. At the violation, only hearing readers exhibited a P600 for verb agreement violations (larger positivities for errors), indicating that the previous findings are not explained by language deprivation. Crucially, both groups exhibited an N400 effect on the sentence-final word for agreement violations - despite poor performance on the acceptability judgment task. Both deaf and hearing readers showed a robust P600 to phrase structure violations. We interpret this overall pattern as indicating that deaf readers engage in monitoring strategies whereby English phrase structure, but not verb morphology, is anticipated during reading, and that both groups exhibit neural sensitivity to grammatical errors during sentence final integration processes. The amplitude of the P600 for grammatical violations was correlated with reading skill only for hearing readers. We conclude that reading strategies for skilled deaf readers who are bilingual in ASL differ from hearing monolingual readers with similar reading skills.
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.