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...
Saved in:
Published in | Frontiers in psychology Vol. 5; p. 859 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
Switzerland
Frontiers Media S.A
08.08.2014
|
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get 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 |