Research Project:
Relationships Between Language & Cognition
| |
|
| |
Signers exhibit enhanced
mental imagery and
face processing abilities
|
The distinct biological basis of sign language results in a unique interface between vision and language and between action systems and language production. This project investigates the possible effects of experience with a visual-spatial language or the effects of auditory deprivation from birth on non-language visual perception and on spatial cognition. Specifically, we are addressing the following questions:
- Does the language you use affect the way you think?
- Does knowing a visual-spatial language affect visual-spatial cognition?
- Does face processing differ between signers and non-signers?
- Why does short term memory span differ for speech and sign?
- Do theories of action perception and production apply to sign language perception/production?
Funding:
This research is supported by the National Institute on Child Health and Human Development (R01 HD13249).
Selected Publications:
- Wilson, M. & Emmorey, K. (2006). Comparing sign language and speech
reveals a universal limit on short-term memory capacity.
Psychological Science, 17(8), 682-83. read
- Emmorey, K., & Wilson, M. (2004). The puzzle of working memory for sign language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(12), 521-523. read
- Wilson, M., & Emmorey, K. (2003). The effect of irrelevant visual input on working memory for sign language. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 8(2), 97-103. read
- Emmorey, K., Klima, E., & Hickok, G. (1998). Mental rotation within linguistic and nonlinguistic domains in users of American Sign Language. Cognition, 68, 221-246. read
- McCullough, S., & Emmorey, K. (1997). Face processing by deaf ASL signers: Evidence for expertise in distinguishing local features. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 2(4), 212 - 222.
- Emmorey, K., Kosslyn, S. M., & Bellugi, U. (1993). Visual imagery and visual-spatial language: Enhanced imagery abilities in deaf and hearing ASL signers, Cognition, 46, 139 - 181. read
|
|
 |
