Articulatory Suppression Effects on Short-term Memory of Signed Digits and Lexical Items in Hearing Bimodal-Bilingual Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We can gain a better understanding of short-term memory processes by studying different language codes and modalities. Three experiments were conducted to investigate: (a) Taiwanese Sign Language (TSL) digit spans in Chinese/TSL hearing bilinguals (n = 32); (b) American Sign Language (ASL) digit spans in English/ASL hearing bilinguals (n = 15); and (c) TSL lexical sign spans in Chinese/TSL hearing bilinguals (n = 22). Articulatory suppression conditions were manipulated to determine if participants would use a speech- or sign-based code to rehearse lists of signed items. Results from all 3 experiments showed that oral suppression significantly reduced spans while manual suppression had no effect, revealing that participants were using speech-based rehearsal to retain lists of signed items in short-term memory. In addition, sub-vocal rehearsal using Chinese facilitated higher digit spans than English even though stimuli were perceived and recalled using signs. This difference was not found for lexical sign spans.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".