The use of visual feedback during signing: Evidence from signers with impaired vision

Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education

Volumn 14, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 99-104

  Emmorey, Karen ^a   Korpics, Franco ^a   Petronio, Karen ^b  

^a SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b EASTERN KENTUCKY UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; BLINDNESS; DEPTH PERCEPTION; FEEDBACK SYSTEM; FEMALE; HEARING IMPAIRMENT; HUMAN; MALE; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; SIGN LANGUAGE; USHER SYNDROME; VISION; VISUAL DISORDER; VISUAL FIELD;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; BLINDNESS; DEAFNESS; FEEDBACK; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; SIGN LANGUAGE; SPACE PERCEPTION; USHER SYNDROMES; VISION DISORDERS; VISUAL FIELDS; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 57849102569     PISSN: 10814159     EISSN: 14657325     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/deafed/enn020     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Arena, V., Finlay, A., & Woll, B. (2007, March). Seeing sign: The relationship of visual feedback to sign language sentence structure. Poster presented at CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, La Jolla, CA.
2. Bavelier, D., Tomann, A., Hutton, C., Mitchell, T., Corina, D., Liu, G., et al. (2000). Visual attention to the periphery is enhanced in congenitally deaf individuals. Journal of Neuroscience, 20, RC93.
3. Bosworth, R. G., & Dobkins, K. R. (2001). The effects of spatial attention on motion processing in deaf and hearing subjects. Brain and Cognition, 49, 170-181.
4. Collins, S., & Petronio, K. (1998). What happens in tactile ASL? In C. Lucas (Ed.), Pinky extension and eye gaze: Language use in Deaf communities (pp. 18-37). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
5. Emmorey, K., Gertsberg, N., Korpics, F., & Wright, C. E. (2008). The influence of visual feedback and register changes on sign language production: A kinematic study with deaf signers. Manuscript submitted for publication.
6. Giles, H., Coupland, N., & Coupland, J. (1991). Accommodation theory: Communication, context, and consequence. In H. Giles, N. Coupland, & J. Coupland (Eds.), Contexts of accommodation: Developments in applied sociolinguistics (pp. 1-68). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
7. Giles, H., & Powesland, P. F. (1975). Speech styles and social evaluation. London: Academic Press.
8. Lackner, J. R., & Tuller, B. H. (1979). Role of efference monitoring in the detection of self-produced speech errors. In W. E. Cooper & E. C. T. Walker (Eds.), Sentence processing (pp. 281-294). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
9. Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
10. Masson, M. E. J., & Loftus, G. R. (2003). Using confidence intervals for graphically based data interpretation. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57, 203-220.
11. Petronio, K. (1988). Interpreting for deaf-blind students: Factors to consider. American Annals of the Deaf, 133, 226-229.
12. Petronio, K., & Dively, V. L. (2006). YES, #NO, visibility and variation in ASL and tactile ASL. Sign Language Studies, 7(1), 57-98.
13. Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2004). Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27, 169-226.
14. Postma, A. (2000). Detection of errors during speech production: A review of speech monitoring models. Cognition, 77(2), 97-132.
15. Postma, A., & Noordanus, C. (1996). Production and detection of speech errors in silent, mouthed, noise-masked, and normal auditory feedback speech. Language and Speech, 39, 375-392.
16. 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.