Volume 18, Issue 2 (Pajouhan Scientific Journal, Winter 2020)                   Pajouhan Sci J 2020, 18(2): 90-96 | Back to browse issues page

XML Persian Abstract Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Fazelian S F. Neuroscience and Sign Language. Pajouhan Sci J 2020; 18 (2) :90-96
URL: http://psj.umsha.ac.ir/article-1-561-en.html
Neuroscience and Sign Language
Seyedeh Faezeh Fazelian *
Instructor, Department of Audiology, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran , f.fazelian@umsha.ac.ir
Abstract:   (3484 Views)
Background and Objective: The present study provides an overview of studies in neuroscience and sign language. It also examines the sign language and the neural regions involved in this language both in terms of its perception and in terms of its production. Sign language processing has been done, with most agreeing on the importance of the left hemisphere in sign language processing. New studies also speak of the right hemisphere's involvement. Many studies have identified the sign language as a means to increase our knowledge of the linguistic and cognitive basis of the brain
Materials and Methods: This article reviews, evaluates and critiques the results of articles presented in databases from 1998 to 2018, and categorizes the information obtained in accordance with the content of the studies and reviews. 24 studies  including neural basis for sign language, early sign language acquisition, working memory and manual excellence in the sign language were examined.
Results: Many language studies have identified gesture as a means of enhancing our knowledge of the linguistic and cognitive basis of the brain. Studies have been conducted on the active role of the cerebral hemisphere in sign language processing, with most agreeing on the importance of the left cerebral hemisphere in sign language processing. New studies also speak of right hemisphere participation. Language comprehension Sign language comprehension differs markedly in both the left and right hemispheres, and this particular difference is mainly in the related visual areas.
Conclusion: Sign language neuroscience research has expanded rapidly in recent years and has become a major part of neuroscience research. The output of these studies is also in the area of brain organization and brain plasticity in language cognition and processing. So it seems that further studies on different aspects of the sign language production and understanding are needed to get to the basis and function of the brain.
Keywords: ign Language, Neuroscience, Neural Processing
Full-Text [PDF 783 kb]   (1439 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Review Article | Subject: Rehabilitation
Received: 2020/01/6 | Accepted: 2020/02/1 | Published: 2020/01/10
References
1. 1. Ronnberg J, Soderfeldt B, Risberg J. The cognitive neuroscience of signed language. Acta Psychol. 2000;105(2-3):237-54. [DOI]
2. 2. Bettger JG, Emmorey K, McCullough SH, Bellugi U. Enhanced facial discrimination: Effects of experience with American Sign Language. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education. 1997:223-33. [DOI]
3. 3. Emmorey K, Damasio H, McCullough S, Grabowski T, Ponto LL, Hichwa RD, et al. Neural systems underlying spatial language in American Sign Language. Neuroimage. 2002;17(2):812-24. [DOI]
4. 4. Corina D. The processing of sign language: Evidence from aphasia. Handbook of neurolinguistics: Elsevier; 1998. p. 313-29. [DOI]
5. 5. Gordon N. The neurology of sign language. Brain and development. 2004;26(3):146-50. [DOI]
6. 6. Newman AJ, Bavelier D, Corina D, Jezzard P, Neville HJ. A critical period for right hemisphere recruitment in American Sign Language processing. Nature Neuroscience. 2002;5(1):76. [DOI]
7. 7. Klein D, Milner B, Zatorre RJ, Zhao V, Nikelski J. Cerebral organization in bilinguals: A PET study of Chinese-English verb generation. NeuroReport. 1999;10(13):2841-5. [DOI]
8. 8. Neville HJ, Bavelier D, Corina D, Rauschecker J, Karni A, Lalwani A, et al. Cerebral organization for language in deaf and hearing subjects: biological constraints and effects of experience. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 1998;95(3):922-9. [DOI]
9. 9. Bavelier D, Corina D, Jezzard P, Clark V, Karni A, Lalwani A, et al. Hemispheric specialization for English and ASL: left invariance-right variability. NeuroReport. 1998;9(7):1537-42. [DOI]
10. 10. Allen JS, Emmorey K, Bruss J, Damasio H. Neuroanatomical differences in visual, motor, and language cortices between congenitally deaf signers, hearing signers, and hearing non-signers. Frontiers in neuroanatomy. 2013;7:26. [DOI]
11. 11. Allen JS, Emmorey K, Bruss J, Damasio H. Morphology of the insula in relation to hearing [DOI]
12. status and sign language experience. Journal of Neuroscience. 2008;28(46):11900-5. [DOI]
13. 12. Bavelier D, Hirshorn EA. I see where you're hearing: how cross-modal plasticity may exploit homologous brain structures. Nature Neuroscience. 2010; [DOI]
14. 13(11):1309. [DOI]
15. 13. Corina DP, Knapp H. Sign language processing and the mirror neuron system. Cortex. 2006;42(4):529-39. [DOI]
16. 14. Hickok G, Bellugi U, Klima ES. What's right about the neural organization of sign language? A perspective on recent neuroimaging results. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 1998;2(12):465-8. [DOI]
17. 15. Corina DP. Sign Language: Psychological and Neural Aspects. 2015. [DOI]
18. 16. Newman AJ, Bavelier D, Corina D, Jezzard P, Neville HJ. A critical period for right hemisphere recruitment in American Sign Language processing. Nature Neuroscience. 2002;5(1):76. [DOI]
19. 17. Weber-Fox CM, Neville HJ. Maturational constraints on functional specializations for language processing: ERP and behavioral evidence in bilingual speakers. Journal of cognitive neuroscience. 1996; [DOI]
20. 8(3):231-56. [DOI]
21. 18. Soderfeldt B, RoNNBERG J, Risberg J. Regional cerebral blood flow in sign language users. Brain and Language. 1994;46(1):59-68. [DOI]
22. 19. MacSweeney M, Woll B, Campbell R, Calvert GA, McGuire PK, David AS, et al. Neural correlates [DOI]
23. of British sign language comprehension: spatial processing demands of topographic language. Journal of cognitive neuroscience. 2002;14(7):1064-75 [DOI]
24. 20. Hänel-Faulhaber B, Skotara N, Kügow M, Salden U, Bottari D, Röder B. ERP correlates of German Sign Language processing in deaf native signers. BMC neuroscience. 2014 Dec;15(1):62. [DOI]
25. 21. MacSweeney M, Capek CM, Campbell R, Woll B. The signing brain: the neurobiology of sign language. Trends in cognitive sciences. 2008 Nov 1;12(11):432-40. [DOI]
26. 22. Newman AJ, Supalla T, Fernandez N, Newport EL, Bavelier D. Neural systems supporting linguistic structure, linguistic experience, and symbolic communication in sign language and gesture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2015 Sep 15;112(37):11684-9. [DOI]
27. 23. Emmorey K, McCullough S, Weisberg J. Neural correlates of fingerspelling, text, and sign processing in deaf American Sign Language–English bilinguals. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience. 2015 Jul 3;30(6):749-67. [DOI]
28. 24. Emmorey K, McCullough S, Mehta S, Grabowski TJ. How sensory-motor systems impact the neural organization for language: Direct contrasts between spoken and signed language. Frontiers in Psychology. 2014 May 27;5:484. [DOI]
Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:
CAPTCHA
Send email to the article author

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

© 2024 CC BY-NC 4.0 | Pajouhan Scientific Journal

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb