ArticleBrain and language2026
The neural response to highly iconic signs in hearing learners and deaf signers.
Article in Brain and language, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Previous ERP studies have demonstrated that hearing learners of American Sign Language (ASL) show sensitivity to sign iconicity (a resemblance between form and meaning) prior to learning any signs. Highly iconic (transparent) signs elicited greater negativity in the N400 window than non-iconic signs when participants performed a task that did not require semantic processing (detect an occasional grooming gesture). Greater negativity was interpreted as evidence that participants implicitly recognized the meaning of the iconic signs. Here we investigated how this neural response changes after learning. For comparison, we included a group of fluent deaf signers who performed the same task. Results revealed that the N400 to iconic signs became less negative after learning, indicating that these signs had been integrated into an emerging lexicon. In contrast, the N400 to non-iconic signs became more negative after learning, indicating more effortful processing compared to the iconic signs. For deaf signers, iconic signs elicited a larger N400 than non-iconic signs, which we interpret as a task effect whereby the highly iconic signs were seen as similar to the grooming gestures because both are enactments of actions (e.g., drinking from a cup; rubbing the eyes). In order to accurately perform the gesture detection task, deaf signers may have engaged in greater semantic processing of the iconic than non-iconic signs, which led to a larger N400 response. Overall, we conclude that iconicity modulates the neural response to signs in different ways before and after learning and that for deaf signers, iconicity effects are task dependent.
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.