The organization of the American Sign Language lexicon: Comparing one- and two-parameter ERP phonological priming effects across tasks

Abstract

We used phonological priming and ERPs to investigate the organization of the lexicon in American Sign Language. Across go/no-go repetition detection and semantic categorization tasks, targets in related pairs that shared handshape and location elicited smaller N400s than targets in unrelated pairs, indicative of facilitated processing. Handshape-related targets also elicited smaller N400s than unrelated targets, but only in the repetition task. The location priming effect reversed direction across tasks, with slightly larger amplitude N400s for targets in related versus unrelated pairs in the semantic task, indicative of interference. These patterns imply that handshape and location play different roles during sign recognition and that there is a hierarchical organization for the sign lexicon. Similar to interactive-activation models of word recognition, we argue for differentiation between sublexical facilitation and lexical competition. Lexical competition is primarily driven by the location parameter and is more engaged when identification of single lexico-semantic entries is required.

New Perspectives on the Neurobiology of Sign Languages

“…Gutiérrez et al (2012) hypothesized that the increased N400 negativity for signs sharing location reflects lexical competition via lateral inhibition. Meade et al (2021a) reported similar results for ASL and provided further support for this hypothesis. Deaf ASL signers performed either a go/no-go repetition detection task which could be performed based only on perceptual processing (lexical access/selection is not required) and a go/ no-go semantic categorization task (is this a country sign?)…”

“…Bilateral SMG may be involved in the integration of phonological parameters during sign perception, as only signers exhibited sensitivity in SMG to phonological violations (Cardin et al, 2016). The electrophysiological data indicate that signers develop neural sublexical representations of handshapes and locations that can be primed (Meade et al, 2021a; see also Meade et al, Forthcoming). In addition, lateral inhibition between signs sharing location results in an increased N400 response when lexical selection is required to perform the task (Gutierrez et al, 2012;Meade et al, 2021a).…”

“…The electrophysiological data indicate that signers develop neural sublexical representations of handshapes and locations that can be primed (Meade et al, 2021a; see also Meade et al, Forthcoming). In addition, lateral inhibition between signs sharing location results in an increased N400 response when lexical selection is required to perform the task (Gutierrez et al, 2012;Meade et al, 2021a). These distinct electrophysiological responses provide evidence for a hierarchical organization of sublexical and lexical representations in the brain for sign languages.…”

Are form priming effects phonological or perceptual? Electrophysiological evidence from American Sign Language

“…The phonological relationship between signs affects processing in ways that bear similarities with findings for spoken words. In recent studies, processing has generally been facilitated when target signs are preceded by prime signs that share two parameters compared to phonologically unrelated prime signs, as reflected in faster responses and smaller amplitude N400s (e.g., Baus, Gutiérrez, & Carreiras, 2014 ; Corina & Knapp, 2006 ; Dye & Shih, 2006 ; Gutiérrez, Müller, Baus, & Carreiras, 2012 ; Meade et al, 2021 ; Meade, Lee, Midgley, Holcomb, & Emmorey, 2018 ). The N400 is a peak in the ERP waveform that occurs approximately 400 ms after word or sign onset and is associated with lexico-semantic processing (see, e.g., Kutas & Federmeier, 2011 ).…”

Sign and Spoken Language Processing Differences in the Brain: A Brief Review of Recent Research

“…This lack of a rhyming effect in SL suggests that SL users do not associate static locations between signs like rhymes in SpL, despite space representing phonology in SLs. Even when Meade et al 24 found evidence that priming sign location in SL did in fact increase the N400 amplitude, therefore increasing expectancy similarly to SpL, they also found that priming using handshape decreased the N400 amplitude instead. This hierarchical differentiation and inverse effects of priming techniques on sign expectancy are unique to SLs.…”