Sign language experience has little effect on face and biomotion perception in bimodal bilinguals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sensory and language experience can affect brain organization and domain-general abilities. For example, D/deaf individuals show superior visual perception compared to hearing controls in several domains, including the perception of faces and peripheral motion. While these enhancements may result from sensory loss and subsequent neural plasticity, they may also reflect experience using a visual-manual language, like American Sign Language (ASL), where signers must process moving hand signs and facial cues simultaneously. In an effort to disentangle these concurrent sensory experiences, we examined how learning sign language influences visual abilities by comparing bimodal bilinguals (i.e., sign language users with typical hearing) and hearing non-signers. Bimodal bilinguals and hearing non-signers completed online psychophysical measures of face matching and biological motion discrimination. No significant group differences were observed across these two tasks, suggesting that sign language experience is insufficient to induce perceptual advantages in typical-hearing adults. However, ASL proficiency (but not years of experience or age of acquisition) was found to predict performance on the motion perception task among bimodal bilinguals. Overall, the results presented here highlight a need for more nuanced study of how linguistic environments, sensory experience, and cognitive functions impact broad perceptual processes and underlying neural correlates.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".