{"title":"美国手语先天性聋哑人的非听觉后缀效应。","authors":"Michael A. Shand, E. Klima","doi":"10.1037/0278-7393.7.6.464","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A series of unordered recall tasks was administered to groups of congenitally deaf subjects for whom American Sign Language (ASL) is the principal means of communication. A suffix effect was observed when an ASL sign was suffixed to a list of ASL signs (Experiment 1), and when a line drawing of an ASL sign was suffixed to a list of line drawings of ASL signs (Experiment 3). The suffix effect was a diminished magnitude when a printed English word was suffixed to a list of printed words (Experiment 2). The findings of Experiment 1 and 3 argue conclusively against the suffix effect resulting solely from sensory store differences. Additionally, the results of Experiment 3 argue conclusively against explanation of the effect as arising solely from differences in the processing of \"static\" versus \"changing-state\" input.","PeriodicalId":76919,"journal":{"name":"Journal of experimental psychology. Human learning and memory","volume":"1941 1","pages":"464-74"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1981-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"95","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Nonauditory suffix effects in congenitally deaf signers of American Sign Language.\",\"authors\":\"Michael A. Shand, E. Klima\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/0278-7393.7.6.464\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"A series of unordered recall tasks was administered to groups of congenitally deaf subjects for whom American Sign Language (ASL) is the principal means of communication. A suffix effect was observed when an ASL sign was suffixed to a list of ASL signs (Experiment 1), and when a line drawing of an ASL sign was suffixed to a list of line drawings of ASL signs (Experiment 3). The suffix effect was a diminished magnitude when a printed English word was suffixed to a list of printed words (Experiment 2). The findings of Experiment 1 and 3 argue conclusively against the suffix effect resulting solely from sensory store differences. Additionally, the results of Experiment 3 argue conclusively against explanation of the effect as arising solely from differences in the processing of \\\"static\\\" versus \\\"changing-state\\\" input.\",\"PeriodicalId\":76919,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of experimental psychology. Human learning and memory\",\"volume\":\"1941 1\",\"pages\":\"464-74\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1981-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"95\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of experimental psychology. Human learning and memory\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.7.6.464\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of experimental psychology. Human learning and memory","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.7.6.464","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Nonauditory suffix effects in congenitally deaf signers of American Sign Language.
A series of unordered recall tasks was administered to groups of congenitally deaf subjects for whom American Sign Language (ASL) is the principal means of communication. A suffix effect was observed when an ASL sign was suffixed to a list of ASL signs (Experiment 1), and when a line drawing of an ASL sign was suffixed to a list of line drawings of ASL signs (Experiment 3). The suffix effect was a diminished magnitude when a printed English word was suffixed to a list of printed words (Experiment 2). The findings of Experiment 1 and 3 argue conclusively against the suffix effect resulting solely from sensory store differences. Additionally, the results of Experiment 3 argue conclusively against explanation of the effect as arising solely from differences in the processing of "static" versus "changing-state" input.