case_images: PMC4050968_01
case_images: An illustration of the novel signs used in Experiment 1.
case_images: fpsyg-05-00560-g0001.jpg
case_images: PMC4050968_01_fpsyg-05-00560-g0001.jpg
case_images: F1
case_images: In each trial, participants are presented with a pair of video clips featuring novel ASL signs:a reduplicated XX sign and a nonreduplicated XY control:matched to the reduplicated sign for the initial syllable X (see Figure 1).
case_images: Rating preference for reduplicated signs with native ASL features in Experiment 1.
case_images: fpsyg-05-00560-g0002.jpg
case_images: PMC4050968_01_fpsyg-05-00560-g0002.jpg
case_images: F2
case_images: Figure 2 plots signers' rating preferences.
case_images: Lexical decision results for ASL signs and novel signs with native ASL features in Experiment 2. Note: Error bars are 95% confidence intervals for the difference between the means.
case_images: fpsyg-05-00560-g0003.jpg
case_images: PMC4050968_01_fpsyg-05-00560-g0003.jpg
case_images: F3
case_images: The mean error and correct response time of signers to ASL signs and novel signs is presented in Figure 3. Figure 3 provides the mean correct response time as a function of lexicality and reduplication.
case_images: An illustration of the four unattested handshapes used in Experiments 3-4.
case_images: fpsyg-05-00560-g0004.jpg
case_images: PMC4050968_01_fpsyg-05-00560-g0004.jpg
case_images: F4
case_images: Four such handshapes were selected: the OI, EE, V* and the Claw*8 (see Figure 4).
case_images: An illustration of the novel signs with unattested handshapes used in Experiments 3, 4.
case_images: fpsyg-05-00560-g0005.jpg
case_images: PMC4050968_01_fpsyg-05-00560-g0005.jpg
case_images: F5
case_images: In the XY controls, the initial syllable was identical to the reduplicated counterpart (XX), whereas the second syllable Y had a native handshape (see Figure 5).
case_images: Rating preference for reduplicated signs with unattested handshapes in Experiment 3.
case_images: fpsyg-05-00560-g0006.jpg
case_images: PMC4050968_01_fpsyg-05-00560-g0006.jpg
case_images: F6
case_images: Figure 6 plots the proportion of trials in which participants favored the reduplicated sign over its nonreduplicated counterpart.
case_images: The effect of handshape attestation on lexical decision across experiments. Note: Error bars are 95% confidence intervals for the difference between the means.
case_images: fpsyg-05-00560-g0007.jpg
case_images: PMC4050968_01_fpsyg-05-00560-g0007.jpg
case_images: F7
case_images: An inspection of the means (see Figure 7) suggests that the unattested handshapes in Experiment 4 elicited faster and more accurate responses.
case_images: Lexical decision results for ASL signs and novel signs with handshapes in Experiment 4. Note: Error bars are 95% confidence intervals for the difference between the means.
case_images: fpsyg-05-00560-g0008.jpg
case_images: PMC4050968_01_fpsyg-05-00560-g0008.jpg
case_images: F8
case_images: An inspection of the means (see Figure 8) suggests that reduplication produced different effects for existing signs and novel signs. An inspection of the means (see Figure 8) suggests that reduplication facilitated response time for both signs and nonsigns, although this effect appears more pronounced for attested ASL signs.