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

IF 1.8 Q4 NEUROSCIENCES Annals of Neurosciences Pub Date : 2022-01-01 Epub Date: 2022-02-15 DOI:10.1177/09727531211070538
Hayley Bree Caldwell
{"title":"Sign and Spoken Language Processing Differences in the Brain: A Brief Review of Recent Research.","authors":"Hayley Bree Caldwell","doi":"10.1177/09727531211070538","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>It is currently accepted that sign languages and spoken languages have significant processing commonalities. The evidence supporting this often merely investigates frontotemporal pathways, perisylvian language areas, hemispheric lateralization, and event-related potentials in typical settings. However, recent evidence has explored beyond this and uncovered numerous modality-dependent processing differences between sign languages and spoken languages by accounting for confounds that previously invalidated processing comparisons and by delving into the specific conditions in which they arise. However, these processing differences are often shallowly dismissed as unspecific to language.</p><p><strong>Summary: </strong>This review examined recent neuroscientific evidence for processing differences between sign and spoken language modalities and the arguments against these differences' importance. Key distinctions exist in the topography of the left anterior negativity (LAN) and with modulations of event-related potential (ERP) components like the N400. There is also differential activation of typical spoken language processing areas, such as the conditional role of the temporal areas in sign language (SL) processing. Importantly, sign language processing uniquely recruits parietal areas for processing phonology and syntax and requires the mapping of spatial information to internal representations. Additionally, modality-specific feedback mechanisms distinctively involve proprioceptive post-output monitoring in sign languages, contrary to spoken languages' auditory and visual feedback mechanisms. The only study to find ERP differences post-production revealed earlier lexical access in sign than spoken languages. Themes of temporality, the validity of an analogous anatomical mechanisms viewpoint, and the comprehensiveness of current language models were also discussed to suggest improvements for future research.</p><p><strong>Key message: </strong>Current neuroscience evidence suggests various ways in which processing differs between sign and spoken language modalities that extend beyond simple differences between languages. Consideration and further exploration of these differences will be integral in developing a more comprehensive view of language in the brain.</p>","PeriodicalId":7921,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Neurosciences","volume":"29 1","pages":"62-70"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/d0/fd/10.1177_09727531211070538.PMC9305909.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Neurosciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09727531211070538","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/2/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: It is currently accepted that sign languages and spoken languages have significant processing commonalities. The evidence supporting this often merely investigates frontotemporal pathways, perisylvian language areas, hemispheric lateralization, and event-related potentials in typical settings. However, recent evidence has explored beyond this and uncovered numerous modality-dependent processing differences between sign languages and spoken languages by accounting for confounds that previously invalidated processing comparisons and by delving into the specific conditions in which they arise. However, these processing differences are often shallowly dismissed as unspecific to language.

Summary: This review examined recent neuroscientific evidence for processing differences between sign and spoken language modalities and the arguments against these differences' importance. Key distinctions exist in the topography of the left anterior negativity (LAN) and with modulations of event-related potential (ERP) components like the N400. There is also differential activation of typical spoken language processing areas, such as the conditional role of the temporal areas in sign language (SL) processing. Importantly, sign language processing uniquely recruits parietal areas for processing phonology and syntax and requires the mapping of spatial information to internal representations. Additionally, modality-specific feedback mechanisms distinctively involve proprioceptive post-output monitoring in sign languages, contrary to spoken languages' auditory and visual feedback mechanisms. The only study to find ERP differences post-production revealed earlier lexical access in sign than spoken languages. Themes of temporality, the validity of an analogous anatomical mechanisms viewpoint, and the comprehensiveness of current language models were also discussed to suggest improvements for future research.

Key message: Current neuroscience evidence suggests various ways in which processing differs between sign and spoken language modalities that extend beyond simple differences between languages. Consideration and further exploration of these differences will be integral in developing a more comprehensive view of language in the brain.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
大脑中手语和口语处理的差异:近期研究综述。
背景:目前人们普遍认为手语和口语具有显著的加工共性。支持这一观点的证据通常只调查了典型情况下的额颞叶通路、外围语言区、半球侧化和事件相关电位。然而,最近的证据已经超越了这一点,并通过考虑先前无效的加工比较的混淆和深入研究它们产生的特定条件,揭示了手语和口语之间许多模态依赖的加工差异。然而,这些处理差异往往被肤浅地认为与语言无关。摘要:本文回顾了最近的神经科学证据,研究了手语和口语模式之间的处理差异,以及反对这些差异重要性的论点。关键的区别存在于左前负性(LAN)的地形和事件相关电位(ERP)成分(如N400)的调节。典型的口语处理区域也有不同的激活,例如颞区在手语处理中的条件作用。重要的是,手语处理需要独特的顶叶区域来处理语音和语法,并且需要将空间信息映射到内部表征。此外,与口语的听觉和视觉反馈机制相反,手语的模态特异性反馈机制明显涉及本体感觉输出后监测。唯一一项在制作后发现ERP差异的研究表明,手语的词汇访问比口语更早。本文还讨论了暂时性的主题、类似解剖机制观点的有效性以及当前语言模型的全面性,并提出了未来研究的改进建议。关键信息:目前的神经科学证据表明,手语和口语之间的处理方式不同,超出了语言之间的简单差异。考虑和进一步探索这些差异将是发展更全面的大脑语言观的必要条件。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Annals of Neurosciences
Annals of Neurosciences NEUROSCIENCES-
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
39
期刊最新文献
Content Validity of Teacher's Evaluation of Neurodevelopmental Delays (TEDD) Tool for Indian Preschoolers. Understanding the Effectiveness of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy: A Study on Offenders. Spectrum of Neuroimmunological Manifestations of Dengue Fever. Why Your Brain Needs a Walk in the Park: Residential Greenspaces as the Next Frontier in Brain Research and Treatment. Omicron-COVID-19-Related Knowledge in Parkinson's Disease Patients and Their Caregivers: A Cross-sectional Study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1