ArticleBehavior research methods2026
Iconicity and transparency in Dutch Sign Language.
Article in Behavior research methods, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Iconicity in sign languages, visually motivated relationships between form and meaning, is closely tied to transparency, or the guessability of meaning based on its form. Yet, how to best measure this relationship remains contentious. This study compares iconicity ratings and transparency scores for 1412 lexical signs in Dutch Sign Language (Nederlandse Gebarentaal, NGT) across deaf NGT signers and Dutch and German non-signers. In this paper, we show that iconicity is perceived differently by the different groups of raters and replicate past findings that signers perceive signs from their own sign language as more iconic than non-signers do. No such differences are found between the two groups of non-signers. Our results show that Dutch non-signers' performance on a transparency task is best predicted by iconicity ratings provided by participants from the same population and by non-signers more broadly. This has important implications for psycholinguistic research, as we show that there is no single "correct" population providing the best iconicity ratings. Instead, rating participants should be matched to the target populations on relevant dimensions to meaningfully predict outcomes in psycholinguistic studies. With this paper, we provide an extensive database of NGT signs with iconicity ratings and transparency scores, available as a reference database for Dutch Sign Language research. The database is aligned with glosses and item-IDs used in the NGT Signbank and Corpus projects, allowing for easy combination of our rating data with phonological and semantic information provided by those databases.
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.