Reproducing American Sign Language sentences: cognitive scaffolding in working memory

The American Sign Language Sentence Reproduction Test (ASL-SRT) requires the precise reproduction of a series of ASL sentences increasing in complexity and length. Error analyses of such tasks provides insight into working memory and scaffolding processes. Data was collected from three groups expect...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inFrontiers in psychology Vol. 5; p. 859
Main Authors Supalla, Ted, Hauser, Peter C., Bavelier, Daphne
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Switzerland Frontiers Media S.A 08.08.2014
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
Abstract The American Sign Language Sentence Reproduction Test (ASL-SRT) requires the precise reproduction of a series of ASL sentences increasing in complexity and length. Error analyses of such tasks provides insight into working memory and scaffolding processes. Data was collected from three groups expected to differ in fluency: deaf children, deaf adults and hearing adults, all users of ASL. Quantitative (correct/incorrect recall) and qualitative error analyses were performed. Percent correct on the reproduction task supports its sensitivity to fluency as test performance clearly differed across the three groups studied. A linguistic analysis of errors further documented differing strategies and bias across groups. Subjects' recall projected the affordance and constraints of deep linguistic representations to differing degrees, with subjects resorting to alternate processing strategies when they failed to recall the sentence correctly. A qualitative error analysis allows us to capture generalizations about the relationship between error pattern and the cognitive scaffolding, which governs the sentence reproduction process. Highly fluent signers and less-fluent signers share common chokepoints on particular words in sentences. However, they diverge in heuristic strategy. Fluent signers, when they make an error, tend to preserve semantic details while altering morpho-syntactic domains. They produce syntactically correct sentences with equivalent meaning to the to-be-reproduced one, but these are not verbatim reproductions of the original sentence. In contrast, less-fluent signers tend to use a more linear strategy, preserving lexical status and word ordering while omitting local inflections, and occasionally resorting to visuo-motoric imitation. Thus, whereas fluent signers readily use top-down scaffolding in their working memory, less fluent signers fail to do so. Implications for current models of working memory across spoken and signed modalities are considered.
AbstractList The American Sign Language Sentence Reproduction Test (ASL-SRT) requires the precise reproduction of a series of ASL sentences increasing in complexity and length. Error analyses of such tasks provides insight into working memory and scaffolding processes. Data was collected from three groups expected to differ in fluency: deaf children, deaf adults and hearing adults, all users of ASL. Quantitative (correct/incorrect recall) and qualitative error analyses were performed. Percent correct on the reproduction task supports its sensitivity to fluency as test performance clearly differed across the three groups studied. A linguistic analysis of errors further documented differing strategies and bias across groups. Subjects' recall projected the affordance and constraints of deep linguistic representations to differing degrees, with subjects resorting to alternate processing strategies when they failed to recall the sentence correctly. A qualitative error analysis allows us to capture generalizations about the relationship between error pattern and the cognitive scaffolding, which governs the sentence reproduction process. Highly fluent signers and less-fluent signers share common chokepoints on particular words in sentences. However, they diverge in heuristic strategy. Fluent signers, when they make an error, tend to preserve semantic details while altering morpho-syntactic domains. They produce syntactically correct sentences with equivalent meaning to the to-be-reproduced one, but these are not verbatim reproductions of the original sentence. In contrast, less-fluent signers tend to use a more linear strategy, preserving lexical status and word ordering while omitting local inflections, and occasionally resorting to visuo-motoric imitation. Thus, whereas fluent signers readily use top-down scaffolding in their working memory, less fluent signers fail to do so. Implications for current models of working memory across spoken and signed modalities are considered.
The American Sign Language Sentence Reproduction Test (ASL-SRT) requires the precise reproduction of a series of ASL sentences increasing in complexity and length. Error analyses of such tasks provides insight into working memory and scaffolding processes. Data was collected from three groups expected to differ in fluency: deaf children, deaf adults and hearing adults, all users of ASL. Quantitative (correct/incorrect recall) and qualitative error analyses were performed. Percent correct on the reproduction task supports its sensitivity to fluency as test performance clearly differed across the three groups studied. A linguistic analysis of errors further documented differing strategies and bias across groups. Subjects' recall projected the affordance and constraints of deep linguistic representations to differing degrees, with subjects resorting to alternate processing strategies when they failed to recall the sentence correctly. A qualitative error analysis allows us to capture generalizations about the relationship between error pattern and the cognitive scaffolding, which governs the sentence reproduction process. Highly fluent signers and less-fluent signers share common chokepoints on particular words in sentences. However, they diverge in heuristic strategy. Fluent signers, when they make an error, tend to preserve semantic details while altering morpho-syntactic domains. They produce syntactically correct sentences with equivalent meaning to the to-be-reproduced one, but these are not verbatim reproductions of the original sentence. In contrast, less-fluent signers tend to use a more linear strategy, preserving lexical status and word ordering while omitting local inflections, and occasionally resorting to visuo-motoric imitation. Thus, whereas fluent signers readily use top-down scaffolding in their working memory, less fluent signers fail to do so. Implications for current models of working memory across spoken and signed modalities are considered.The American Sign Language Sentence Reproduction Test (ASL-SRT) requires the precise reproduction of a series of ASL sentences increasing in complexity and length. Error analyses of such tasks provides insight into working memory and scaffolding processes. Data was collected from three groups expected to differ in fluency: deaf children, deaf adults and hearing adults, all users of ASL. Quantitative (correct/incorrect recall) and qualitative error analyses were performed. Percent correct on the reproduction task supports its sensitivity to fluency as test performance clearly differed across the three groups studied. A linguistic analysis of errors further documented differing strategies and bias across groups. Subjects' recall projected the affordance and constraints of deep linguistic representations to differing degrees, with subjects resorting to alternate processing strategies when they failed to recall the sentence correctly. A qualitative error analysis allows us to capture generalizations about the relationship between error pattern and the cognitive scaffolding, which governs the sentence reproduction process. Highly fluent signers and less-fluent signers share common chokepoints on particular words in sentences. However, they diverge in heuristic strategy. Fluent signers, when they make an error, tend to preserve semantic details while altering morpho-syntactic domains. They produce syntactically correct sentences with equivalent meaning to the to-be-reproduced one, but these are not verbatim reproductions of the original sentence. In contrast, less-fluent signers tend to use a more linear strategy, preserving lexical status and word ordering while omitting local inflections, and occasionally resorting to visuo-motoric imitation. Thus, whereas fluent signers readily use top-down scaffolding in their working memory, less fluent signers fail to do so. Implications for current models of working memory across spoken and signed modalities are considered.
The American Sign Language Sentence Reproduction Test (ASL-SRT) requires the precise reproduction of a series of ASL sentences increasing in complexity and length. Error analyses of such tasks provides insight into working memory and scaffolding processes. Data was collected from three groups expected to differ in fluency: deaf children, deaf adults and hearing adults, all users of ASL. Quantitative (correct/incorrect recall) and qualitative error analyses were performed. Percent correct on the reproduction task supports its sensitivity to fluency as test performance clearly differed across the three groups studied. A linguistic analysis of errors further documented differing strategies and bias across groups. Subjects’ recall projected the affordance and constraints of deep linguistic representations to differing degrees, with subjects resorting to alternate processing strategies in the absence of linguistic knowledge. A qualitative error analysis allows us to capture generalizations about the relationship between error pattern and the cognitive scaffolding, which governs the sentence reproduction process. Highly fluent signers and less-fluent signers share common chokepoints on particular words in sentences. However, they diverge in heuristic strategy. Fluent signers, when they make an error, tend to preserve semantic details while altering morpho-syntactic domains. They produce syntactically correct sentences with equivalent meaning to the to-be-reproduced one, but these are not verbatim reproductions of the original sentence. In contrast, less-fluent signers tend to use a more linear strategy, preserving lexical status and word ordering while omitting local inflections, and occasionally resorting to visuo-motoric imitation. Thus, whereas fluent signers readily use top-down scaffolding in their working memory, less fluent signers fail to do so. Implications for current models of working memory across spoken and signed modalities are considered.
The American Sign Language Sentence Reproduction Test (ASL-SRT) requires the precise reproduction of a series of ASL sentences increasing in complexity and length. Error analyses of such tasks provides insight into working memory and scaffolding processes. Data was collected from three groups expected to differ in fluency: deaf children, deaf adults and hearing adults, all users of ASL. Quantitative (correct/incorrect recall) and qualitative error analyses were performed. Percent correct on the reproduction task supports its sensitivity to fluency as test performance clearly differed across the three groups studied. A linguistic analysis of errors further documented differing strategies and bias across groups. Subjects' recall projected the affordance and constraints of deep linguistic representations to differing degrees, with subjects resorting to alternate processing strategies when they failed to recall the sentence correctly. A qualitative error analysis allows us to capture generalizations about the relationship between error pattern and the cognitive scaffolding, which governs the sentence reproduction process. Highly fluent signers and less-fluent signers share common chokepoints on particular words in sentences. However, they diverge in heuristic strategy. Fluent signers, when they make an error, tend to preserve semantic details while altering morpho-syntactic domains. They produce syntactically correct sentences with equivalent meaning to the to-be-reproduced one, but these are not verbatim reproductions of the original sentence. In contrast, less-fluent signers tend to use a more linear strategy, preserving lexical status and word ordering while omitting local inflections, and occasionally resorting to visuo-motoric imitation. Thus, whereas fluent signers readily use top-down scaffolding in their working memory, less fluent signers fail to do so. Implications for current models of working memory across spoken and signed modalities are considered.
Author Hauser, Peter C.
Bavelier, Daphne
Supalla, Ted
AuthorAffiliation 2 Department of American Sign Language and Interpreting Education, Deaf Studies Laboratory, National Technical Institute for the Deaf, Rochester Institute of Technology Rochester, NY, USA
3 Department of Psychology and Education Sciences, University of Geneva Geneva, Switzerland
1 Sign Language Research Lab, Department of Neurology, Center for Brain Plasticity and Recovery, Georgetown University Washington, DC, USA
4 Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, University of Rochester Rochester, NY, USA
AuthorAffiliation_xml – name: 4 Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, University of Rochester Rochester, NY, USA
– name: 1 Sign Language Research Lab, Department of Neurology, Center for Brain Plasticity and Recovery, Georgetown University Washington, DC, USA
– name: 2 Department of American Sign Language and Interpreting Education, Deaf Studies Laboratory, National Technical Institute for the Deaf, Rochester Institute of Technology Rochester, NY, USA
– name: 3 Department of Psychology and Education Sciences, University of Geneva Geneva, Switzerland
Author_xml – sequence: 1
  givenname: Ted
  surname: Supalla
  fullname: Supalla, Ted
– sequence: 2
  givenname: Peter C.
  surname: Hauser
  fullname: Hauser, Peter C.
– sequence: 3
  givenname: Daphne
  surname: Bavelier
  fullname: Bavelier, Daphne
BackLink https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25152744$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed
BookMark eNp1kc1v1DAQxS1UREvpnRPKkcsu_kwcDkhVRUullZCAni3HHgeXxF7spNX-9zi7pWqR8MWj8Xu_Geu9RkchBkDoLcFrxmT7wW3zrl9TTPgaYynaF-iE1DVfEdzIoyf1MTrL-RaXwzHFmL5Cx1QQQRvOT9DNN9imaGfjQ1-dj5C80aH67vtQbXToZ91DlSFMEAzkj5WJffCTvytNo52Lg118PlT3Mf1ayhHGmHZv0EunhwxnD_cpurn8_OPiy2rz9er64nyzMrym08rhBojDYKyR2pIWE6FJK2vKTNNBzYkgwMFS13IjGamBNRK3ugXeWdk4wk7R9YFro75V2-RHnXYqaq_2jZh6pdPkzQBKu5ZgKrAEzHlT5lFhdceNYNa6jjSF9enA2s7dCNaUTyc9PIM-fwn-p-rjneKE1qxhBfD-AZDi7xnypEafDQyDDhDnrIgQNZVMCl6k757OehzyN5ciwAeBSTHnBO5RQrBa0lf79NWSvtqnXyz1PxbjJz35uGzrh_8b_wCbx7ae
CitedBy_id crossref_primary_10_1016_j_cognition_2015_04_009
crossref_primary_10_1093_deafed_enac018
crossref_primary_10_1093_deafed_enab024
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_cognition_2021_104642
crossref_primary_10_1017_S0142716421000436
crossref_primary_10_3389_fpsyg_2015_01153
crossref_primary_10_1080_15434303_2023_2256320
crossref_primary_10_3390_languages5040040
crossref_primary_10_3390_brainsci9060148
crossref_primary_10_1044_2021_PERSP_21_00203
crossref_primary_10_1080_15348458_2021_1878360
crossref_primary_10_1093_deafed_enz005
crossref_primary_10_1590_2317_1782_20232022184es
crossref_primary_10_1162_jocn_a_01542
crossref_primary_10_3758_s13428_021_01751_x
crossref_primary_10_1080_23273798_2015_1014924
crossref_primary_10_1093_deafed_enaa006
crossref_primary_10_1590_2317_1782_20232022184en
crossref_primary_10_37233_TRSPED_2024_0149
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jml_2021_104283
crossref_primary_10_1017_S1366728924000336
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jml_2021_104282
crossref_primary_10_1080_13546805_2018_1476227
crossref_primary_10_1093_deafed_enaa001
crossref_primary_10_3389_fpsyg_2015_00078
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_bandl_2016_06_007
crossref_primary_10_1093_deafed_enw068
crossref_primary_10_3390_educsci9030223
crossref_primary_10_1017_S1366728918000226
crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0236729
crossref_primary_10_1093_deafed_env051
crossref_primary_10_1093_deafed_eny021
crossref_primary_10_4236_psych_2016_74052
crossref_primary_10_3389_fevo_2023_1193903
Cites_doi 10.1353/sls.1989.0027
10.1038/nn1298
10.7551/mitpress/4737.001.0001
10.3758/BF03202635
10.1080/14992020802301167
10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198570394.003.0001
10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00515-6
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01831.x
10.1037/0033-295X.99.1.122
10.1016/0749-596X(90)90042-X
10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00506-5
10.1016/j.tics.2006.08.007
10.1207/s15516709cog1401_2
10.1017/CBO9781139163910
10.1075/tsl.53.18mor
ContentType Journal Article
Copyright Copyright © 2014 Supalla, Hauser and Bavelier. 2014
Copyright_xml – notice: Copyright © 2014 Supalla, Hauser and Bavelier. 2014
DBID AAYXX
CITATION
NPM
7X8
5PM
DOA
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00859
DatabaseName CrossRef
PubMed
MEDLINE - Academic
PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)
DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals
DatabaseTitle CrossRef
PubMed
MEDLINE - Academic
DatabaseTitleList PubMed
MEDLINE - Academic


Database_xml – sequence: 1
  dbid: DOA
  name: DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals
  url: https://www.doaj.org/
  sourceTypes: Open Website
– sequence: 2
  dbid: NPM
  name: PubMed
  url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed
  sourceTypes: Index Database
DeliveryMethod fulltext_linktorsrc
Discipline Psychology
EISSN 1664-1078
ExternalDocumentID oai_doaj_org_article_af9102508e0447c8a25dab4c53ddfb17
PMC4126373
25152744
10_3389_fpsyg_2014_00859
Genre Journal Article
GrantInformation_xml – fundername: NIDCD NIH HHS
  grantid: R01 DC004418
– fundername: NIDCD NIH HHS
  grantid: R01 DC000167
GroupedDBID 53G
5VS
9T4
AAFWJ
AAKDD
AAYXX
ABIVO
ACGFO
ACGFS
ACHQT
ACXDI
ADBBV
ADRAZ
AEGXH
AFPKN
AIAGR
ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS
AOIJS
BAWUL
BCNDV
CITATION
DIK
EBS
EJD
EMOBN
F5P
GROUPED_DOAJ
GX1
HYE
IPNFZ
KQ8
M48
M~E
O5R
O5S
OK1
P2P
PGMZT
RIG
RNS
RPM
NPM
7X8
5PM
ID FETCH-LOGICAL-c462t-f07e1f0ecdc8ad19015a198623c7be64151e4ed2f94c8316e37809a9e4bd87f13
IEDL.DBID M48
ISSN 1664-1078
IngestDate Wed Aug 27 01:30:35 EDT 2025
Thu Aug 21 18:24:19 EDT 2025
Fri Jul 11 09:10:57 EDT 2025
Thu Apr 03 07:08:32 EDT 2025
Tue Jul 01 01:44:56 EDT 2025
Thu Apr 24 23:02:55 EDT 2025
IsDoiOpenAccess true
IsOpenAccess true
IsPeerReviewed true
IsScholarly true
Keywords reproduction error
verbatim recall
American Sign Language
error analysis
working memory
native signers
error type
Language English
License This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
LinkModel DirectLink
MergedId FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c462t-f07e1f0ecdc8ad19015a198623c7be64151e4ed2f94c8316e37809a9e4bd87f13
Notes ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
This article was submitted to Language Sciences, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology.
Reviewed by: Diane Brentari, University of Chicago, USA; Matt Hall, University of California, San Diego, USA
Edited by: Susan Goldin-Meadow, University of Chicago, USA; Iris Berent, Northeastern University, USA
OpenAccessLink http://journals.scholarsportal.info/openUrl.xqy?doi=10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00859
PMID 25152744
PQID 1556283854
PQPubID 23479
ParticipantIDs doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_af9102508e0447c8a25dab4c53ddfb17
pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4126373
proquest_miscellaneous_1556283854
pubmed_primary_25152744
crossref_primary_10_3389_fpsyg_2014_00859
crossref_citationtrail_10_3389_fpsyg_2014_00859
ProviderPackageCode CITATION
AAYXX
PublicationCentury 2000
PublicationDate 2014-08-08
PublicationDateYYYYMMDD 2014-08-08
PublicationDate_xml – month: 08
  year: 2014
  text: 2014-08-08
  day: 08
PublicationDecade 2010
PublicationPlace Switzerland
PublicationPlace_xml – name: Switzerland
PublicationTitle Frontiers in psychology
PublicationTitleAlternate Front Psychol
PublicationYear 2014
Publisher Frontiers Media S.A
Publisher_xml – name: Frontiers Media S.A
References Boutla (B4) 2004; 7
Baddeley (B1) 1995
Ronnberg (B22) 2008; 47
Fischer (B6) 1990
McElree (B16) 2003; 48
Liddell (B13) 1989; 64
Potter (B21) 1990; 29
Sandler (B23) 2006
Supalla (B24) 1990
Bavelier (B3) 2006; 17
Morford (B17) 2002
Just (B11) 1992; 99
Mayberry (B14) 2010
Newport (B18) 1990; 14
Lewis (B12) 2006; 10
Newport (B19) 1985
Mayberry (B15) 1989; 17
Potter (B20) 1990
Baddeley (B2) 2007
Hammill (B9) 1994
Brentari (B5) 1998
Hauser (B10) 2008
Fodor (B7) 1983
Haarmann (B8) 2003; 48
15311279 - Nat Neurosci. 2004 Sep;7(9):997-1002
16949330 - Trends Cogn Sci. 2006 Oct;10(10):447-54
2811671 - Mem Cognit. 1989 Nov;17(6):740-54
17201792 - Psychol Sci. 2006 Dec;17(12):1090-2
1546114 - Psychol Rev. 1992 Jan;99(1):122-49
19012117 - Int J Audiol. 2008 Nov;47 Suppl 2:S99-105
References_xml – volume: 64
  start-page: 197
  year: 1989
  ident: B13
  article-title: American Sign Language: the phonological base
  publication-title: Sign Lang. Stud
  doi: 10.1353/sls.1989.0027
– volume: 7
  start-page: 997
  year: 2004
  ident: B4
  article-title: Short-term memory span: insights from sign language
  publication-title: Nat. Neurosci
  doi: 10.1038/nn1298
– volume-title: The Modularity of Mind
  year: 1983
  ident: B7
  doi: 10.7551/mitpress/4737.001.0001
– volume: 17
  start-page: 740
  year: 1989
  ident: B15
  article-title: Looking through phonological shape to lexical meaning: the bottleneck of non-native sign language processing
  publication-title: Mem. Cogn
  doi: 10.3758/BF03202635
– volume: 47
  start-page: S171
  year: 2008
  ident: B22
  article-title: Cognition counts: a working memory system for ease of language understanding (ELU)
  publication-title: Int. J. Audiol
  doi: 10.1080/14992020802301167
– start-page: 279
  volume-title: Current Trends in European Sign Language Research
  year: 1990
  ident: B6
  article-title: Verb sandwiches in ASL
– start-page: 1
  volume-title: The Cognitive Neuroscience of Working Memory
  year: 2007
  ident: B2
  article-title: Working Memory: past, present and future?
  doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198570394.003.0001
– start-page: 881
  volume-title: The Crosslinguistic Study of Language Acquisition
  year: 1985
  ident: B19
  article-title: The acquisition of American Sign Language
– volume-title: A Prosodic Model of Sign Language Phonology
  year: 1998
  ident: B5
– volume: 48
  start-page: 67
  year: 2003
  ident: B16
  article-title: Memory structures that subserve sentence comprehension
  publication-title: J. Mem. Lang
  doi: 10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00515-6
– volume: 17
  start-page: 1090
  year: 2006
  ident: B3
  article-title: Persistent differences in short-term memory span between sign and speech: implications for cross-linguistic comparisons
  publication-title: Psychol. Sci
  doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01831.x
– volume-title: Test of Adolescent and Adult Language, 3rd Edn
  year: 1994
  ident: B9
– volume: 99
  start-page: 122
  year: 1992
  ident: B11
  article-title: A capacity theory of comprehension: individual differences in working memory
  publication-title: Psychol. Rev
  doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.99.1.122
– volume: 29
  start-page: 633
  year: 1990
  ident: B21
  article-title: Regeneration in the short-term recall of sentences
  publication-title: J. Mem. Lang
  doi: 10.1016/0749-596X(90)90042-X
– start-page: 127
  volume-title: Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research
  year: 1990
  ident: B24
  article-title: Serial verbs of motion in ASL
– start-page: 755
  volume-title: The Cognitive Neurosciences
  year: 1995
  ident: B1
  article-title: Working memory
– volume: 48
  start-page: 320
  year: 2003
  ident: B8
  article-title: Individual differences in semantic short-term memory capacity and reading comprehension
  publication-title: J. Mem. Lang
  doi: 10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00506-5
– start-page: 281
  volume-title: The Oxford Handbook of Deaf Studies, Language, and Education
  year: 2010
  ident: B14
  article-title: Early language acquisition and adult language ability: what sign language reveals about the critical period for language
– volume: 10
  start-page: 447
  year: 2006
  ident: B12
  article-title: Computational principles of working memory in sentence comprehension
  publication-title: Trends Cogn. Sci
  doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2006.08.007
– volume: 14
  start-page: 11
  year: 1990
  ident: B18
  article-title: Maturational constraints on language learning
  publication-title: Cogn. Sci
  doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog1401_2
– volume-title: Sign Languages and Universals
  year: 2006
  ident: B23
  doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139163910
– start-page: 329
  volume-title: The Evolution of Language Out of Pre-Language
  year: 2002
  ident: B17
  article-title: Why does exposure to language matter?
  doi: 10.1075/tsl.53.18mor
– start-page: 160
  volume-title: Sign Language: Spinning and Unraveling the Past, Present and Future
  year: 2008
  ident: B10
  article-title: American Sign Language-Sentence reproduction test: development and implications
– start-page: 3
  volume-title: An invitation to Cognitive Science
  year: 1990
  ident: B20
  article-title: Remembering
– reference: 19012117 - Int J Audiol. 2008 Nov;47 Suppl 2:S99-105
– reference: 16949330 - Trends Cogn Sci. 2006 Oct;10(10):447-54
– reference: 1546114 - Psychol Rev. 1992 Jan;99(1):122-49
– reference: 15311279 - Nat Neurosci. 2004 Sep;7(9):997-1002
– reference: 2811671 - Mem Cognit. 1989 Nov;17(6):740-54
– reference: 17201792 - Psychol Sci. 2006 Dec;17(12):1090-2
SSID ssj0000402002
Score 2.2440817
Snippet The American Sign Language Sentence Reproduction Test (ASL-SRT) requires the precise reproduction of a series of ASL sentences increasing in complexity and...
SourceID doaj
pubmedcentral
proquest
pubmed
crossref
SourceType Open Website
Open Access Repository
Aggregation Database
Index Database
Enrichment Source
StartPage 859
SubjectTerms American Sign Language
chokepoints
error analysis
native signers
Psychology
verbatim recall
working memory
SummonAdditionalLinks – databaseName: DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals
  dbid: DOA
  link: http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwrV3LSsQwFA3iyo34tr6I4MZFmbZJmtSdiiKibsYBdyHNQwekDjou5u-9N-0MMyK6cdsHDeemOfcmJyeEnBiJmkZmUqFMlvLSZqlhzKZBhMIzV7s8ww3O9w_lzYDfPomnuaO-UBPW2gO3wPVMAEIDnlY-41xaZQrhTM2tYM6FOo_7yIHz5oqpOAZjWYTSHVyXhCqs6oXRx-QZpVzolq3QmnSOh6Jd_0855nep5Bz3XK-R1S5ppOdtY9fJkm82yMps7JpskgEk0tG7FZiITldhaH_43NC7bkaS9tF-E1XTZ_RyKhqifWtCaFeg6LCh3dw5vUcB7mSLDK6vHi9v0u7EhNTyshinIZM-D5m3DoByketNXkHRwqysfQlknXvuXREqbhXLS8-kyipTeV47JUPOtsly89b4XUKNqwvGjPCqcDwEYSqgsVJAdQagWyYT0pvip21nJ46nWrxqKCsQcR0R14i4jogn5HT2xqi10vjl2QsMyew5NMGOF6Br6K5r6L-6RkKOpwHV8NPgSohp_Nvnh4YkqoS8SgmekJ02wLNPQcIn0DYxIXIh9AttWbzTDF-iMTfPi5JJtvcfjd8nKwhH1BqqA7I8fv_0h5D_jOuj2NW_AMC8BYk
  priority: 102
  providerName: Directory of Open Access Journals
Title Reproducing American Sign Language sentences: cognitive scaffolding in working memory
URI https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25152744
https://www.proquest.com/docview/1556283854
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PMC4126373
https://doaj.org/article/af9102508e0447c8a25dab4c53ddfb17
Volume 5
hasFullText 1
inHoldings 1
isFullTextHit
isPrint
link http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwrV1Lb9QwEB5BufSCeDf0ISNx4RCaxHbsVEIVVFQVYrksK_VmOX5sV6qyZXcrsf--M97swqLCiWsSK85M7PnG_vwNwFuriNPIbS61LXJRuyK3nLs8ylgF7ltfFnTAefCtvhiJL5fy8tfx6N6A83tTO6onNZpdv__5Y3mKA_4DZZwYb4_jzXw5JpYWCWFr2TyERxiXFNUzGPRgP83LlCoRnWfvbw23YlOS8L8Pd_5Jn_wtHp0_gcc9kGQfV55_Cg9C9wx2N_PZ8jmMEFwnPVeMTmy9M8OGk3HHvvarlGxIkpzEpD5hZ2siERs6G-NqV4pNOtavp7MBkXKXL2B0_vn72UXeV1HInairRR4LFcpYBOedtj7Ff1s2mMhwp9pQYwAvgwi-io1wmpd14EoXjW2CaL1WseQvYaebdmEPmPVtxbmVQVdexChtg6GtlpixtaVyXGVwvLafcb3EOFW6uDaYapDFTbK4IYubZPEM3m1a3KzkNf7x7CdyyeY5EsZOF6azsenHmbER8Q_COh0KIRR-cSW9bYWT3PuIvczgzdqhBgcS7Y7YLkxv5waBVY1YS0uRwauVgzevQhAoSUoxA7Xl-q2-bN_pJldJrFuUVc0Vf_0_Or8Pu2SOxD_UB7CzmN2GQ8REi_YorSUcpR_-DozhDow
linkProvider Scholars Portal
openUrl ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Reproducing+American+Sign+Language+Sentences%3A+Cognitive+Scaffolding+in+Working+Memory&rft.jtitle=Frontiers+in+psychology&rft.au=Ted+eSupalla&rft.au=Peter+eHauser&rft.au=Daphne+eBavelier&rft.au=Daphne+eBavelier&rft.date=2014-08-08&rft.pub=Frontiers+Media+S.A&rft.eissn=1664-1078&rft.volume=5&rft_id=info:doi/10.3389%2Ffpsyg.2014.00859&rft.externalDBID=DOA&rft.externalDocID=oai_doaj_org_article_af9102508e0447c8a25dab4c53ddfb17
thumbnail_l http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=1664-1078&client=summon
thumbnail_m http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=1664-1078&client=summon
thumbnail_s http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=1664-1078&client=summon