Neural mechanisms of event visibility in sign languages

References

• Amrhein, V., Korner-Nievergelt, F., & Roth, T. (2017). The earth is flat (p<0.05): significance thresholds and the crisis of unreplicable research. PeerJ, 5, e3544. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.3544
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 390–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blumenthal-Dramé, A., & Malaia, E. (2019). Shared neural and cognitive mechanisms in action and language: The multiscale information transfer framework. WIRES Cognitive Science, 10(2), e1484. doi:10.1002/wcs.1484
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bradley, C., Malaia, E. A., Siskind, J. M., & Wilbur, R. B. (2022). Visual form of ASL verb signs predicts non-signer judgment of transitivity. PLoS One, 17(2), e0262098. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262098
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cardin, V., Campbell, R., MacSweeney, M., Holmer, E., Rönnberg, J., & Rudner, M. (2020). Trends in language acquisition research. Understanding Deafness, Language and Cognitive Development. Essays in Honour of Bencie Woll, 25, 159–181. https://doi.org/10.1075/tilar.25.09car
   Google Scholar
• Christensen, R. H. B. (2019). “Ordinal–regression models for ordinal data.” R package version 2019.12-10. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ordinal
   Google Scholar
• Corina, D. P., & Lawyer, L. A. (2019). The neural organization of signed language. In G. I. de Zubicaray, & N. O. Schiller (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of neurolinguistics (pp. 402–424). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Emmorey, K. (2021). New perspectives on the neurobiology of sign languages. Frontiers in Communication, 6(6), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2021.748430
   Google Scholar
• Evans, N., & Levinson, S. C. (2009). The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32(5), 429–448. doi:10.1017/S0140525X0999094X
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eyer, J. A., Leonard, L. B., Bedore, L. M., McGregor, K. K., Anderson, B., & Viescas, R. (2002). Fast mapping of verbs by children with specific language impairment. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 16(1), 59–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699200110102269
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gratton, G., Coles, M. G., & Donchin, E. (1983). A new method for off-line removal of ocular artifact. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 55(4), 468–484. https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-4694(83)90135-9
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Greenberg, J. H. (1963). Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In J. H. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of human language (pp. 73–113). MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Greene, M. R., & Hansen, B. C. (2020). Disentangling the independent contributions of visual and conceptual features to the spatiotemporal dynamics of scene categorization. The Journal of Neuroscience, 40(27), 5283–5299. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2088-19.2020
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenhouse, S. W., & Geisser, S. (1959). On methods in the analysis of profile data. Psychometrika, 24(2), 95–112. doi:10.1007/BF02289823
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grose, D. (2012). Lexical semantics: Semantic fields and lexical aspect. In R. Pfau, M. Steinbach, & B. Woll (Eds.), Sign language. An international handbook (pp. 432–462). Mouton de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Gutiérrez-Sigut, E., & Baus, C. (2019). Lexical processing in sign language comprehension and production. In J. Quer, R. Pfau, & A. Herrmann (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of theoretical and experimental sign language research. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/qr769
   Google Scholar
• Hickok, G., & Bellugi, U. (2010). Neural organization of language: Clues from sign language aphasia. In J. Guendouzi, F. Loncke, & M. J. Williams (Eds.), The handbook of psycholinguistic & cognitive processes: Perspectives in communication disorders (pp. 685–706). Taylor & Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Huettig, F., Chen, J., Bowerman, M., & Majid, A. (2010). Do language-specific categories shape conceptual processing? Mandarin classifier distinctions influence eye gaze behavior, but only during linguistic processing. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 10(1-2), 39–58. doi:10.1163/156853710X497167
   Google Scholar
• Ji, Y., & Papafragou, A. (2020). Is there an end in sight? Viewers’ sensitivity to abstract event structure. Cognition, 197, 104197. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104197
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• King, R., & Abner, N. (2018). Representation of event structure in the manual modality: Evidence for a universal mapping bias. In Workshop on the Emergence of Universals. The Ohio State University.
   Google Scholar
• Klima, E. S., & Bellugi, U. (1979). The signs of language. Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Klima, E. S., Tzeng, O. J., Fok, Y. Y. A., Bellugi, U., Corina, D., & Bettger, J. G. (1999). From sign to script: Effects of linguistic experience on perceptual categorization. Journal of Chinese Linguistics Monograph Series, 13, 96–129. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23826111
   Google Scholar
• Krebs, J., Malaia, E. A., Wilbur, R. B., & Roehm, D. (2023). Visual boundaries in sign motion: Processing with and without lip-reading cues. Experiments in Linguistic Meaning, 2, 164–175. https://doi.org/10.3765/elm.2.5336
   Google Scholar
• Krebs, J., Strutzenberger, G., Schwameder, H., Wilbur, R. B., Malaia, E., & Roehm, D. (2021). Event visibility in sign language motion: Evidence from Austrian Sign Language (ÖGS). Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 43, 362–368. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/67r14298
   Google Scholar
• Krifka, M. (1992). Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and temporal constitution. In I. A. Sag, & A. Szabolcsi (Eds.), Lexical matters (pp. 29–53). CSLI Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, J., Geraci, C., Schlenker, P., & Strickland, B. (2021). Boundaries in space and time: Iconic biases across modalities. Cognition, 210, 104596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104596
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kurby, C. A., & Zacks, J. M. (2008). Segmentation in the perception and memory of events. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(2), 72–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2007.11.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macmillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. (2004). Detection theory: A user’s guide. Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Macmillan, N. A., & Kaplan, H. L. (1985). Detection theory analysis of group data: Estimating sensitivity from average hit and false-alarm rates. Psychological Bulletin, 98(1), 185. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.98.1.185
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malaia, E. (2014). It still isn’t over: Event boundaries in language and perception. Language and Linguistics Compass, 8(3), 89–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12071
   Google Scholar
• Malaia, E., Borneman, J., & Wilbur, R. B. (2008). Analysis of ASL motion capture data towards identification of verb type. In J. Bos, & R. Delmonte (Eds.), Semantics in text processing. STEP 2008 conference proceedings (pp. 155–164). College Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Malaia, E., & Milković, M. (2021). Aspect: Theoretical and experimental perspectives. In J. Quer, R. Pfau, & A. Herrmann (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of theoretical and experimental sign language research (pp. 194–212). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Malaia, E., Ranaweera, R., Wilbur, R. B., & Talavage, T. M. (2012). Event segmentation in a visual language: Neural bases of processing American Sign Language predicates. Neuroimage, 59(4), 4094–4101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.10.034
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malaia, E., & Wilbur, R. B. (2012). Kinematic signatures of telic and atelic events in ASL predicates. Language and Speech, 55(3), 407–421. https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830911422201
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malaia, E., Wilbur, R. B., & Milković, M. (2013). Kinematic parameters of signed verbs. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 56(5), 1677–1688. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2013/12-0257)
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malaia, E., Wilbur, R. B., & Weber-Fox, C. (2009). ERP evidence for telicity effects on syntactic processing in garden-path sentences. Brain and Language, 108(3), 145–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2008.09.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malaia, E., Wilbur, R. B., & Weber-Fox, C. (2012). Effects of verbal event structure on online thematic role assignment. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 41(5), 323–345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-011-9195-x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malaia, E., Wilbur, R. B., & Weber-Fox, C. (2013). Event end-point primes the undergoer argument: Neurobiological bases of event structure processing. In B. Arsenijević, B. Gehrke, & R. Marín (Eds.), Studies in the composition and decomposition of event predicates. Studies in linguistics and philosophy, vol 93 (pp. 231–248). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Milković, M. (2011). Verb classes in Croatian Sign Language (HZJ): Syntactic and semantic properties [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Zagreb.
   Google Scholar
• Motamedi, Y., Montemurro, K., Abner, N., Flaherty, M., Kirby, S., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2022). The seeds of the noun–verb distinction in the manual modality: Improvisation and interaction in the emergence of grammatical categories. Languages, 7(2), 95. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages7020095
   Google Scholar
• Mussini, E., Berchicci, M., Bianco, V., Perri, R. L., Quinzi, F., & Di Russo, F. (2020). The role of task complexity on frontal event-related potentials and evidence in favour of the epiphenomenal interpretation of the Go/No-Go N2 effect. Neuroscience, 449, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2020.09.042
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oldfield, R. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9(1), 97–113. doi:10.1016/0028-3932(71)90067-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perri, R. L., Berchicci, M., Bianco, V., Quinzi, F., Spinelli, D., & Di Russo, F. (2019). Perceptual load in decision making: The role of anterior insula and visual areas. An ERP study. Neuropsychologia, 129, 65–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2019.03.009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pfau, R., Steinbach, M., & Woll, B. (2012). Tense, aspect, and modality. In R. Pfau, M. Steinbach, & B. Woll (Eds.), Sign language. An international handbook (pp. 186–204). Mouton de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Pustejovsky, J. (1991). The syntax of event structure. Cognition, 41(1–3), 47–81. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(91)90032-Y
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R Core Team. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
   Google Scholar
• Rice, M. (2003). A unified model of specific and general language delay: Grammatical tense as a clinical marker of unexpected variation. In Y. Levy, & J. Schaeffer (Eds.), Language competence across populations: Toward a definition of specific language impairment (pp. 63–95). Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Sandler, W., & Lillo-Martin, D. (2006). Sign languages and linguistic universals. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schalber, K. (2006). What is the chin doing? An analysis of interrogatives in Austrian sign language. Sign Language & Linguistics, 9(1-2), 133–150. https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.9.1-2.08sch
   Google Scholar
• Schalber, K. (2015). Austrian sign language. In J. Bakken Jepsen, G. De Clerck, S. Lutalo-Kiingi, & W. B. McGregor (Eds.), Sign languages of the world: A comparative handbook (pp. 105–128). De Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Schlenker, P. (2020). Gestural grammar. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 38(3), 887–936. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-019-09460-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwartz, R. G., & Leonard, L. B. (1984). Words, objects, and actions in early lexical acquisition. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 27(1), 119–127. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.2701.119
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sheng, L., & McGregor, K. K. (2010). Object and action naming in children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 53(6), 1704–1719. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2010/09-0180)
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Speer, N. K., Zacks, J. M., & Reynolds, J. R. (2007). Human brain activity time-locked to narrative event boundaries. Psychological Science, 18(5), 449–455. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01920.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strickland, B., Geraci, C., Chemla, E., Schlenker, P., Kelepir, M., & Pfau, R. (2015). Event representations constrain the structure of language: Sign language as a window into universally accessible linguistic biases. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(19), 5968–5973. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1423080112
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tenny, C. (1994). Aspectual roles and the syntax-semantics interface. Kluwer.
   Google Scholar
• Trueswell, J. C., & Papafragou, A. (2010). Perceiving and remembering events cross-linguistically: Evidence from dual-task paradigms. Journal of Memory and Language, 63(1), 64–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2010.02.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vendler, Z. (1967). Linguistics in philosophy. Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Verkuyl, H. (1972). On the compositional nature of aspects. Reidel.
   Google Scholar
• Wilbur, R. B. (2003). Representations of telicity in ASL. Chicago Linguistic Society, 39(1), 354–368.
   Google Scholar
• Wilbur, R. B. (2005). A reanalysis of reduplication in American Sign Language. In B. Hurch (Ed.), Studies in reduplication (pp. 593–620). Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Wilbur, R. B. (2008). Complex predicates involving events, time, and aspect: Is this why sign languages look so similar? In J. Quer (Ed.), Signs of the time: Selected papers from TISLR 2004 (pp. 217–250). Signum Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wilbur, R. B. (2009). Productive reduplication in ASL, a fundamentally monosyllabic language. In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Data and Theory: Papers in Phonology in Celebration of Charles W. Kisseberth, a special issue of Language Sciences (Vol. 31, pp. 325–342).
   Google Scholar
• Wilbur, R. B. (2010). The semantics-phonology interface. In D. Brentari (Ed.), Cambridge language surveys: Sign languages (pp. 357–382). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wilbur, R. B., Klima, E. S., & Bellugi, U. (1983). Roots: On the search for the origins of signs in ASL. Chicago Linguistic Society, 19, 314–336.
   Google Scholar
• Wilbur, R. B., Malaia, E., & Shay, R. A. (2012). Degree modification and intensification in American Sign Language adjectives. In M. Aloni, V. Kimmelman, F. Roelofsen, G. W. Sassoon, K. Schulz, & M. Westera (Eds.), Logic, language and meaning (pp. 92–101). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Zacks, J. M., Braver, T. S., Sheridan, M. A., Donaldson, D. I., Snyder, A. Z., Ollinger, J. M., Buckner, R. L., & Raichle, M. E. (2001). Human brain activity time-locked to perceptual event boundaries. Nature Neuroscience, 4(6), 651–655. https://doi.org/10.1038/88486
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zacks, J. M., & Swallow, K. M. (2007). Event segmentation. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(2), 80–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00480.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zacks, J. M., Swallow, K. M., Vettel, J. M., & McAvoy, M. P. (2006). Visual motion and the neural correlates of event perception. Brain Research, 1076(1), 150–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2005.12.122
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zacks, J. M., & Tversky, B. (2001). Event structure in perception and conception. Psychological Bulletin, 127(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.1.3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zacks, J. M., Tversky, B., & Iyer, G. (2001). Perceiving, remembering, and communicating structure in events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130(1), 29–58. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.130.1.29
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar