Poster E50, Monday, March 26, 2:30-4:30 pm, Exhibit Hall C
Language output monitoring in sign production: an electroencephalography study
Soren Mickelsen1, Linda Nadalet1, Megan Mott2, Katherine Midgley2,3, Phillip Holcomb2,3,4, Karen Emmorey1,3,4, Stephanie Ries1,3,4; 1School of Speech Language and Hearing Sciences, San Diego State University, 2Department of Psychology, San Diego State University, 3Center for Clinical and Cognitive Neuroscience, San Diego State University, 4Joint-Doctoral Program in Language and Communicative Disorders, San Diego State University & University of California San Diego
A domain-general monitoring mechanism has been proposed to be involved in overt speech monitoring. This mechanism is reflected in a medial frontal component, the error negativity (Ne), present in both errors and correct trials (Ne-like wave) but larger in errors than correct trials. In overt speech production, this negativity starts to rise before speech onset and is therefore associated with inner speech monitoring. Here, we investigate whether the same monitoring mechanism is involved in sign language production. Seven deaf signers (ASL dominant) and seven hearing signers (English dominant) participated in a picture naming study in ASL. As in previous studies, ASL naming latencies were measured by keyboard release (any manual hesitations after keyboard release were removed from the data). EEG results revealed medial frontal negativities peaking within 100 ms after keyboard release in both groups but with no clear amplitude difference between errors and correct trials. However, a large second negativity peaking ~450 ms after keyboard release was present for errors and not for correct trials in the deaf signers, with only a minimal amplitude difference for the hearing signers. We suggest that the medial frontal monitoring mechanism may be better time-locked to sign onset which occurs ~400 ms after keyboard release, rather than to lexical access which is indexed by keyboard release (i.e., keyboard release occurs when signers know the sign they want to produce). Differences between groups may be linked to differences in language dominance, with more variable lexical access to motor programming latencies for hearing signers.
Topic Area: LANGUAGE: Other