Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2022 Jan;29(1):62-70.
doi: 10.1177/09727531211070538. Epub 2022 Feb 15.

Sign and Spoken Language Processing Differences in the Brain: A Brief Review of Recent Research

Affiliations
Review

Sign and Spoken Language Processing Differences in the Brain: A Brief Review of Recent Research

Hayley Bree Caldwell. Ann Neurosci. 2022 Jan.

Abstract

Background: It is currently accepted that sign languages and spoken languages have significant processing commonalities. The evidence supporting this often merely investigates frontotemporal pathways, perisylvian language areas, hemispheric lateralization, and event-related potentials in typical settings. However, recent evidence has explored beyond this and uncovered numerous modality-dependent processing differences between sign languages and spoken languages by accounting for confounds that previously invalidated processing comparisons and by delving into the specific conditions in which they arise. However, these processing differences are often shallowly dismissed as unspecific to language.

Summary: This review examined recent neuroscientific evidence for processing differences between sign and spoken language modalities and the arguments against these differences' importance. Key distinctions exist in the topography of the left anterior negativity (LAN) and with modulations of event-related potential (ERP) components like the N400. There is also differential activation of typical spoken language processing areas, such as the conditional role of the temporal areas in sign language (SL) processing. Importantly, sign language processing uniquely recruits parietal areas for processing phonology and syntax and requires the mapping of spatial information to internal representations. Additionally, modality-specific feedback mechanisms distinctively involve proprioceptive post-output monitoring in sign languages, contrary to spoken languages' auditory and visual feedback mechanisms. The only study to find ERP differences post-production revealed earlier lexical access in sign than spoken languages. Themes of temporality, the validity of an analogous anatomical mechanisms viewpoint, and the comprehensiveness of current language models were also discussed to suggest improvements for future research.

Key message: Current neuroscience evidence suggests various ways in which processing differs between sign and spoken language modalities that extend beyond simple differences between languages. Consideration and further exploration of these differences will be integral in developing a more comprehensive view of language in the brain.

Keywords: Cognitive neuroscience; Language comprehension; Language production; N400; Parietal; Sign language; Spoken language.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Campbell R, MacSweeney M, and Waters D.. Sign language and the brain: A review. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ 2008; 13: 3–20. - PubMed
    1. Capek CM, Grossi G, Newman AJ, et al.. Brain systems mediating semantic and syntactic processing in deaf native signers: Biological invariance and modality specificity. PNAS 2009; 106: 8784–8789. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Grosvald M, Gutierrez E, Hafer S, et al.. Dissociating linguistic and non-linguistic gesture processing: Electrophysiological evidence from American Sign Language. Brain Lang 2012; 121: 12–24. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Riès SK, Nadalet L, Mickelsen S, et al.. Preoutput language monitoring in sign production. J Cogn Neurosci 2020; 32: 1079–1091. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Skotara N, Salden U, Kügow M, et al.. The influence of language deprivation in early childhood on L2 processing: An ERP comparison of deaf native signers and deaf signers with a delayed language acquisition. BMC Neurosci 2012; 13: 44. - PMC - PubMed