Iconicity is defined as the resemblance between a form and a given meaning, while transparency is defined as the ability to infer a given meaning based on the form. ​
​

In this study, we examined how knowledge of American Sign Language (ASL) influences the perceived iconicity of 991 ASL signs. We looked at the relationship between iconicity (form-meaning resemblance), transparency (correctly guessed signs), ‘perceived transparency’ (transparency ratings of the guesses), and how diverse the meanings of the participants' guesses were (e.g., did they all guess the same meaning?). We conducted two experiments; in the first experiment we asked deaf ASL signers and hearing non-signers to rate how 'iconic' they thought each sign was in relation to its meaning. The hearing non-signers were told the meaning of the signs, so that both groups would know what each sign meant. These iconicity judgements, or ratings, give us a measure of how a person is able to perceive the connection between the sign form and its meaning (think about onomatopoeia in English: 'bang', 'slurp', 'chirp', 'miaw').

​In the second experiment, we selected a smaller subset of 430 ASL signs and asked another group of hearing non-signers to guess the meaning of the signs. They were then asked to subsequently rate how obvious (transparent) their guesses would be to other people. This tells us about how much a person, who doesn't know any ASL, can guess the meaning of the signs purely based on what the signs look like, and, if they did not guess the correct meaning, what the nature of their guesses was. For example, for a sign-naive perceiver, the ASL sign COOKIE may conjure up images of a "spider" moving around on a surface while others might say "open (a jar)" because of the twisting movement of the wrist. In the first instance, the person focused on the shape of the hand (clawed handshape) contacting the palm, and in the second instance, the person focused on the twisting hand movement. What determines how people extract the meaning of gestures? And for those who are actually trying to learn ASL signs (like me!!), how does the ability to extract meanings, which may or may not be irrelevant, impact their learning process - does it help or hinder sign retention?

Our study demonstrated that linguistic knowledge mediates perceived iconicity differently from experience with gesture. 

Sevcikova Sehyr, Z., and Emmorey, K. (in press). ​The perceived mapping between form and meaning in American Sign Language depends on linguistic knowledge and task: Evidence from iconicity and transparency judgments. Language & Cognition.

Printed letter recognition plays an important role in reading and follows different phases of processing, from early visual feature detection to the access of abstract letter representations. Masked priming ERP studies provide an insight into these phases through repetition priming effects for single letter targets. Using masked subliminal priming and a letter identification paradigm, Petit et al. (2006) showed priming of abstract letter representations between 220 and 300ms - related letter pairs elicited less positive-going waveforms than unrelated pairs.
 
Fingerspelling occurs frequently in American Sign Language (ASL) and is integral to the lexicon. In a single letter unmasked priming paradigm, we investigated whether fingerspelling fonts and English letters have similar abstract representations and a similar time course of processing. We examined the priming effects between fingerspelled letter fonts, English letters, and across the two systems. Event-related brain potentials (ERPs) were recorded over 29 scalp sites while deaf signers performed a probe detection task (detect the printed or fingerspelled letter Y, 12% of trials). Targets were 23 single letters presented in a typical printed English font or in an ASL fingerspelling font, tested in separate blocks, and presented centrally for 200ms immediately preceded by a clearly visible 100ms prime that was either an English letter or fingerspelled font.
 
Eighteen deaf ASL signers participated in the study. Both English letters and fingerspelling fonts clearly primed English letter targets, indicating that both prime types pre-activated English letter representations. When fingerspelling targets were preceded by letter primes, there was a smaller difference between related and unrelated pairs suggesting that fingerspelling representations may only weakly pre-activate English letter primes. Recoding English letters into fingerspelling for reading might be inefficient. This result is consistent with a previous study showing that printed words were not recoded into fingerspelling in short-term memory tasks (Sehyr et al. 2017).
 
In regard to the priming of abstract letter representations, only letter-to-letter pairs showed a pattern of priming similar to Petit et al. where related pairs elicited less positive-going waveform than unrelated pairs between 200-300ms. Thus, it appears that abstract ASL fingerspelling and English letter representations are processed differently. A priming effect also emerged at ~250ms whose polarity was consistent with classic repetition effects on the N400 where related pairs elicited less negative-going waveforms than unrelated pairs. We speculate that this effect might reflect strategic access to lexical names of letters triggered by the presence of fingerspelling. Alternatively, this effect might be due to our detection task and the supraliminal character of the primes (i.e., participants covertly named the letter stimuli), or the priming effect arises as a result of more general differences in letter processing between deaf and hearing readers. We addressed the last possibility in a follow-up experiment where we examined priming effects for only the letter-to-letter pairs with 19 hearing English speakers. Preliminary results reveal that English speakers exhibit priming effects for letter-to-letter pairs that are similar to the deaf signers in the original study, thus eliminating the possibility that the priming effect was due to group specific factors.

*This project is generously supported by NIH and Dr. Emmorey's LLCN lab. Data collection for this project is ongoing and preliminary data will be presented at the Society for the Neurobiology Conference (SNL) 10th Annual Meeting in Quebec, August 16-18, 2018. 

Sehyr, Sevcikova Z., Renna, J., Osmond, S., Midgley, K. J., Holcomb, P. J., & Emmorey, K. (2018) Priming effects between fingerspelled fonts and printed letters. Poster presented at the Society for the Neurobiology Conference (SNL) 10th Annual Meeting in Quebec, August 16-18, 2018. Zed Sehyr is supported by the SNL 2018 Travel Award www.neurolang.org/2018/2018-award-winners/

Verbal fluency is the ability to produce as many words as possible that are either semantically related (e.g. animals, vegetables) or phonologically related (e.g. words that begin with the letter 'L') within one minute. This ability varies based on the person's language proficiency, age of language exposure or whether the person uses one or more languages.

Verbal fluency performance has been widely used as a measure of language proficiency, word retrieval and lexical organization, memory organization, or executive functioning in children and adults in clinical and research settings.

The ability to generate words on the fly has been examined for many spoken languages but it has not been extensively studied in deaf or hearing sign language users with different language backgrounds. How does this ability compare between signed and spoken language? How does the age of exposure to ASL mediate the speed, accuracy, or pattern of sign retrieval?

In one experiment, we examined semantic fluency performance in deaf signers who generated signs in ASL (their dominant language) and compared them with hearing sign-naive monolingual English speakers who produced English words for each of the following categories: 'animals', 'fruits', 'vegetables' and 'clothing'. We found that language, whether spoken or signed, did not influence performance as both signers and speakers retrieved comparable numbers of items, and interestingly, about 30% of the deaf signers' ASL responses were made up of fingerspelling.

In another experiment, we were interested to see if hearing speakers, who are proficient ASL and spoken English, would generate similar numbers of items in both languages. One group of ASL-English bilinguals had deaf parents and used both languages from birth. Another group of ASL-English bilinguals acquired ASL later in adulthood (they were ASL-English interpreters or teachers of the deaf). Semantic fluency scores were higher in English (the dominant language) than ASL (the non-dominant language), regardless of age of ASL acquisition. Again, fingerspelling was relatively common in both groups of signer.

To summarize, modality of the dominant language (spoken or signed) does not affect semantic fluency scores in deaf or hearing adults if fingerspelled forms are considered acceptable responses, and that language dominance rather than age of acquisition affects ASL semantic fluency performance in hearing ASL–English bilinguals 

This study showed that verbal fluency tests are generalizable to signed languages. Semantic fluency is sensitive to language dominance and can be used to measure lexical retrieval in both signed and spoken language modalities. Secondly, this study emphasizes the need to consider fingerspelling when assessing semantic fluency in ASL due to the relatively high occurrence of fingerspelling in ASL responses. This is crucial for clinicians and researchers who are relying on these measures as an index of language proficiency, lexical access or executive functioning. 

Zed Sevcikova Sehyr, Marcel R Giezen, Karen Emmorey (2018). Comparing Semantic Fluency in American Sign Language and English, The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, eny013, https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/eny013

Poster presented at CNS New York Apr 1-4 2016
​
We investigated whether hemispheric organization of word and face recognition is uniquely shaped by sign language experience.

For typically developing hearing individuals, learning to read leads to LH-lateralization for words and may trigger subsequent RH-lateralization for faces. Hemispheric specialization for faces in RH may be contingent on prior lateralization for words in LH (Dundas, Plaut & Behrmann, 2014).

Deaf native users of American Sign Language (ASL) have distinct developmental experiences with both words and faces (e.g., the face conveys linguistic information).

What is the relationship between word and face processing for deaf native users of American Sign Language? How do distinct developmental experiences of deaf signers and hearing non-signers affect hemispheric organization for word and face processing? 

In our preliminary report, we report data from 19 hearing non-signers and 23 deaf ASL signers made same-different judgments to pairs of words or faces (192 trials each), where the first stimulus was presented centrally and the second was presented to either the left (LH) or right hemisphere (RH). EEG was recorded to centrally presented words / faces and referenced to the average of all electrode sites. 

In addition, we measured accuracy of discrimination between the central and lateralized words / faces. Based on previous research with hearing non-signers, we expected to observe RH advantage for faces presented in the left visual field and conversely, LH advantage for words presented in the right visual field.

Preliminary ERP results: 
Deaf signers and hearing non-signers showed a similar laterality pattern for N170 to words (left-lateralized) and to faces (bilateral). However, the scalp distributions for the laterality effects differed between the groups and might reflect unique organization of visual pathways in the occipito-temporal cortex for deaf signers.

• Face processing: Deaf and hearing showed a bilateral N170 to faces. Deaf signers showed a slightly right-lateralized response to faces at temporal sites, but behaviorally the hearing non-signers showed a small RH advantage. ERP results suggest perhaps a more distributed circuit for face perception.
• Word processing: Both groups showed a left lateralized N170 response to words, but the asymmetry was somewhat larger for hearing non-signers. At temporal sites, deaf signers exhibited a more bilateral N170 response while hearing non-signers exhibited a strong, left-lateralized N170 response. This result might reflect phonological-orthographic integration in hearing, but not deaf, individuals.

Discrimination accuracy - behavioral results:

• Both groups show higher accuracy for words than faces (F (2, 82) = 29.3)
• LH bias for words but no RH bias for face processing; only hearing group approached significance

Stay tuned for more news and final results!

We conducted three immediate serial recall experiments that manipulated type of stimulus presentation (printed or fingerspelled words) and word similarity (speech-based or manual). Matched deaf American Sign Language signers and hearing non-signers participated (mean reading age = 14–15 years). Speech-based similarity effects were found for both stimulus types indicating that deaf signers recoded both printed and fingerspelled words into a speech-based phonological code. A manual similarity effect was not observed for printed words indicating that print was not recoded into fingerspelling (FS). A manual similarity effect was observed for fingerspelled words when similarity was based on joint angles rather than on handshape compactness. However, a follow-up experiment suggested that the manual similarity effect was due to perceptual confusion at encoding. Overall, these findings suggest that FS is strongly linked to English phonology for deaf adult signers who are relatively skilled readers. This link between fingerspelled words and English phonology allows for the use of a more efficient speech-based code for retaining fingerspelled words in short-term memory and may strengthen the representation of English vocabulary.

Open access:
academic.oup.com/jdsde/article/22/1/72/2333964
​

Sevcikova, Z. & Emmorey, K. (2014) Short-term Memory for Fingerspelling and Print. Paper presented at Center for Research in Language, University of California San Diego. 29 April 2014
http://crl.ucsd.edu/talks/pasttalks.php

Lexical and phonological properties of words, such as frequency and neighborhood density, affect many aspects of language processing. For many spoken languages, there are large databases that can be used to obtain this information, but for American Sign Language (and many other sign languages), no large corpora or normative datasets are currently available. Here we report the development of ASL-LEX, a soon to be publically available resource for sign language researchers, that contains lexical and phonological information for nearly 1,000 ASL signs. We collected subjective frequency ratings for each sign from 25-31 Deaf signers (native and early-exposed) using a 7-point scale (1 = very infrequent). We also collected iconicity ratings for each sign from 21-37 hearing non-signers using a 7-point scale (1 = not at all iconic). In addition, each entry has been coded for phonological features based on a modified version of the Prosodic Model (Brentari, 1998) from which neighborhood densities were calculated. The signs have also been coded for grammatical class and initialization, and the database contains time codes for the sign onset and offset within each video clip. ASL-LEX will soon be accessible online, and users will be able to search the database contents and access the sign videos using pre-defined search criteria.

Our analysis of the subjective frequency data from ASL-LEX reveals a strong correlation between the frequency ratings from native signers and early signers (exposed to ASL before age seven) (rs =.94, p<.001), replicating Mayberry et al. (2014). Thus, subjective frequency ratings are relatively stable across Deaf people who are proficient signers. Subjective frequency ratings for ASL signs (raw scores) were moderately correlated with the word frequencies of their English translations from SUBTLEX (rs =.58, p<.001). We observed a small, but significant correlation between frequency and iconicity (rs =–.17, p<.001), indicating a weak tendency for frequent signs to be rated as less iconic. This pattern is the opposite of that observed by Vinson et al. (2008) for British Sign Language, although they also observed a very weak correlation between subjective frequency and iconicity. Frequency ratings in ASL-LEX were normally distributed, while iconicity ratings were skewed toward the lower end of the scale (median iconicity rating = 2.71). Neighborhood density (ND) correlated weakly with frequency and with iconicity (frequency: rs =.11, p<.001; iconicity: rs =.12, p<.001). For this analysis, ND was defined as the number of sign neighbors sharing three out of four coded features (parallel to the way neighbors have been defined in the spoken language literature, i.e., words that share all but one phoneme). The weak correlation between ND and frequency parallels results from spoken languages (Frauenfelder et al., 1993). Overall, the results indicate weak relationships between iconicity, frequency, and neighborhood density for ASL. Although ASL-LEX is not a substitute for an ASL corpus, this database will be a valuable resource for designing tightly controlled experimental studies, as well as developing assessment and resource materials for education.

Sehyr Sevcikova, Z. Caselli, N. Cohen-Goldberg, A., & Emmorey, K. ASL-LEX: A lexical database of American Sign Language. Poster presented at The 12th Conference on Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research (TISLR12), Melbourne Convention Centre, Australia, Jan 4-7 2016. Awarded Best Early Award Prize.
Poster abstract here
Poster PDF here

Paper to appear:
Caselli, N., Sehyr Sevcikova, Z., Cohen-Goldberg, A., & Emmorey, K. (2016) ASL-LEX: A lexical database of American Sign Language. Behavior Research Methods.

Please visit our project website:
http://asl-lex.org/

And keep an eye out on the project news here:
https://slhs.sdsu.edu/llcn/asl-lex/