Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T02:15:41.368Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The influence of visual feedback and register changes on sign language production: A kinematic study with deaf signers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2009

KAREN EMMOREY ,
NELLY GERTSBERG ,
FRANCO KORPICS  and
CHARLES E. WRIGHT
KAREN EMMOREY*
Affiliation:
San Diego State University
NELLY GERTSBERG
Affiliation:
University of California, Irvine
FRANCO KORPICS
Affiliation:
San Diego State University
CHARLES E. WRIGHT
Affiliation:
University of California, Irvine
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Karen Emmorey, Laboratory for Language and Cognitive Neuroscience, San Diego State University, 6495 Alvarado Road, Suite 200, San Diego, CA 92120. E-mail: kemmorey@mail.sdsu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Speakers monitor their speech output by listening to their own voice. However, signers do not look directly at their hands and cannot see their own face. We investigated the importance of a visual perceptual loop for sign language monitoring by examining whether changes in visual input alter sign production. Deaf signers produced American Sign Language (ASL) signs within a carrier phrase under five conditions: blindfolded, wearing tunnel-vision goggles, normal (citation) signing, shouting, and informal signing. Three-dimensional movement trajectories were obtained using an Optotrak Certus system. Informally produced signs were shorter with less vertical movement. Shouted signs were displaced forward and to the right and were produced within a larger volume of signing space, with greater velocity, greater distance traveled, and a longer duration. Tunnel vision caused signers to produce less movement within the vertical dimension of signing space, but blind and citation signing did not differ significantly on any measure, except duration. Thus, signers do not “sign louder” when they cannot see themselves, but they do alter their sign production when vision is restricted. We hypothesize that visual feedback serves primarily to fine-tune the size of signing space rather than as input to a comprehension-based monitor.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 30 , Issue 1 , January 2009 , pp. 187 - 203
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Arena, V., Finlay, A., & Woll, B. (2007). Seeing sign: The relationship of visual feedback to sign language sentence structure. Poster presented at the City University of New York Conference on Human Sentence Processing, La Jolla, CA.Google Scholar
Berthier, N. E., Clifton, R. K., Gullapalli, V., McCall, D. D., & Robin, D. J. (1996). Visual information and object size in the control of reaching. Journal of Motor Behavior, 28, 187–197.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bond, Z. S., Moore, T. J., & Gable, B. (1989). Acoustic–phonetic characteristics of speech produced in noise and while wearing an oxygen mask. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 85, 907–912.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Churchill, A., Hopkins, B., Ronnqvuist, L., & Vogt, S. (2000). Vision of the hand and environmental context in human prehension. Experimental Brain Research, 134, 81–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crasborn, O. (2003). Phonetic implementation of phonological categories in sign language of The Netherlands. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Leiden University.Google Scholar
Elman, J. (1981). Effects of frequency-shifted feedback on the pitch of vocal productions. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 70, 45–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Emmorey, K. (2002). Language, cognition, and the brain: Insights from sign language research. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Emmorey, K., Korpics, F., & Petronio, K. (in press). The use of visual feedback during signing: Evidence from signers with impaired vision. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education.Google Scholar
Jones, J. A., & Munhall, K. (2000). Perceptual calibration of f0 production: Evidence from feedback perturbation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 108, 1246–1251.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Junqua, J.-C. (1996). The influence of acoustics on speech production: A noise-induced stress phenomenon known as the Lombard reflex. Speech Communication, 20, 13–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lackner, J. R., & Tuller, B. H. (1979). Role of efference monitoring in the detection of self-produced speech errors. In Cooper, W. E. & Walker, E. C. T. (Eds.), Sentence processing (pp. 281–294). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. (1983). Monitoring and self-repair in speech. Cognition, 14, 41–104.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liddell, S. (1980). American Sign Language syntax. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lombard, É. (1911). Le signe de l'elevation de la voix [The sign of a rising voice]. Annales des Maladies de L'orielle et du Larynx, 37, 101–119.Google Scholar
Mauk, C. E. (2003). Undershoot in two modalities: Evidence from fast speech and fast signing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar
Naeve, S. L., Siegel, G. M., & Clay, J. L. (1992). Modifications in sign under conditions of impeded visibility. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 35, 1272–1280.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perkell, J. S., Matthies, M. L., Lane, H., Guenther, F. H., Wilhelms-Tricarico, R., & Wozniak, J. (1997). Speech motor control: Acoustic goals, saturation effects, auditory feedack and internal models. Speech Communication, 22, 227–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Postma, A., & Noordnus, C. (1996). Production and detection of speech errors in silent, mouthed, noise-masked, and normal auditory feedback speech. Language & Speech, 39, 375–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schettino, L. R., Adamovich, S. V., & Poizner, H. (2003). Effects of object shape and visual feedback on hand configuration during grasping. Experimental Brain Research, 151, 158–166.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sergio, L. E., & Scott, S. H. (1998). Hand and joint paths during reaching movements with and without vision. Experimental Brain Research, 122, 157–164.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siegel, G. M., Clay, J. L., & Naeve, S. L. (1992). The effects of auditory and visual interference on speech and sign. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 35, 1358–1362.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Summers, W. V., Pisoni, D. B., Bernacki, R. H., Pedlow, R. I., & Stokes, M. A. (1988). Effects of noise on speech production: Acoustic and perceptual analyses. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 84, 917–928.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thompson, R., Emmorey, K., & Kluender, R. (2006). The relationship between eye gaze and agreement in American Sign Language: An eye-tracking study. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 24, 571–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeshan, U. (2004). Interrogative constructions in signed languages: Cross linguistic perspectives. Language, 80, 7–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar