A critical evaluation of models of gesture and speech production for understanding gesture in aphasia

Ruiter, Jan P. de; Beer, Carola de

doi:10.1080/02687038.2013.797067

Cited by 46 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As the degree of verbal vs. non-verbal semantic integrity of aphasic participants was not measured in those studies, one may question if the contradictory results could be related to their more impaired verbal and/or non-verbal semantic systems, leading to weaker activation and/or impaired execution of gestures. Nevertheless, the close link between processes underlying co-verbal gestures and verbal language production is still evident (de Ruiter & de Beer, 2013). One possible way to further examine the relationship of these two mechanisms is to carefully examine the timing and rate of using non-verbal communication during an oral task (see Cicone et al, 1979).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Co-verbal gestures among speakers with aphasia: Influence of aphasia severity, linguistic and semantic skills, and hemiplegia on gesture employment in oral discourse

Kong

Law

Wat

et al. 2015

Journal of Communication Disorders

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of co-verbal gestures is common in human communication and has been reported to assist word retrieval and to facilitate verbal interactions. This study systematically investigated the impact of aphasia severity, integrity of semantic processing, and hemiplegia on the use of co-verbal gestures, with reference to gesture forms and functions, by 131 normal speakers, 48 individuals with aphasia and their controls. All participants were native Cantonese speakers. It was found that the severity of aphasia and verbal-semantic impairment was associated with significantly more co-verbal gestures. However, there was no relationship between right-sided hemiplegia and gesture employment. Moreover, significantly more gestures were employed by the speakers with aphasia, but about 10% of them did not gesture. Among those who used gestures, content-carrying gestures, including iconic, metaphoric, deictic gestures, and emblems, served the function of enhancing language content and providing information additional to the language content. As for the non-content carrying gestures, beats were used primarily for reinforcing speech prosody or guiding speech flow, while non-identifiable gestures were associated with assisting lexical retrieval or with no specific functions. The above findings would enhance our understanding of the use of various forms of co-verbal gestures in aphasic discourse production and their functions. Speech-language pathologists may also refer to the current annotation system and the results to guide clinical evaluation and remediation of gestures in aphasia.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Co-verbal gestures among speakers with aphasia: Influence of aphasia severity, linguistic and semantic skills, and hemiplegia on gesture employment in oral discourse

Kong

Law

Wat

et al. 2015

Journal of Communication Disorders

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is debate in the literature concerning the functions of iconic gestures with the two main propositions being that (1) gesture is produced to facilitate speech production or (2) gesture is produced to communicate a message (see de Ruiter and de Beer for a review of current models). When verbal communication is compromised, more of the communicative load can be transferred to the gesture modality.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Gesture, in particular pantomime, may serve as a powerful communicative tool for many individuals with aphasia. Indeed, the MAM/Trade‐off hypothesis predicts that individuals with aphasia should be able to compensate for their verbal deficits by transferring more of the communicative load to the gestural modality (de Ruiter and de Beer ). However, empirical evidence suggests that this is not the case for every individual with aphasia.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Communicative effectiveness of pantomime gesture in people with aphasia

Rose

Mok

Sekiné

2016

International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Human communication occurs through both verbal and visual/motoric modalities. Simultaneous conversational speech and gesture occurs across all cultures and age groups. When verbal communication is compromised, more of the communicative load can be transferred to the gesture modality. Although people with aphasia produce meaning-laden gestures, the communicative value of these has not been adequately investigated. Aims: To investigate the communicative effectiveness of pantomime gesture produced spontaneously by individuals with aphasia during conversational discourse. Methods & Procedures:Sixty-seven undergraduate students wrote down the messages conveyed by 11 people with aphasia that produced pantomime while engaged in conversational discourse. Students were presented with a speech-only, a gesture-only and a combined speech and gesture condition and guessed messages in both a free description and a multiple-choice task. Outcomes & Results:As hypothesized, listener comprehension was more accurate in the combined pantomime gesture and speech condition as compared with the gesture-or speech-only conditions. Participants achieved greater accuracy in the multiple-choice task as compared with the free-description task, but only in the gestureonly condition. The communicative effectiveness of the pantomime gestures increased as the fluency of the participants with aphasia decreased. Conclusions & Implications:These results indicate that when pantomime gesture was presented with aphasic speech, the combination had strong communicative effectiveness. Future studies could investigate how pantomimes can be integrated into interventions for people with aphasia, particularly emphasizing elicitation of pantomimes in as natural a context as possible and highlighting the opportunity for efficient message repair.

show abstract

“…For example, the growth point theory (McNeill, 1992(McNeill, , 2005(McNeill, , 2012 proposed that co-speech gestures and speech originate from the same representation; that is, from the same "growth point" (i.e., the minimal idea unit that combines images and words) during speaking. The sketch model (de Ruiter, 2000;de Ruiter & de Beer, 2013) proposed that co-speech gestures and speech are based on the same communicative intention. Co-speech gestures are generated in the conceptualization phase (Levelt, 1989) of speech production.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Co-thought and co-speech gestures are generated by the same action generation process.

Chu

Kita

2016

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People spontaneously gesture when they speak (co-speech gestures) and when they solve problems silently (co-thought gestures). In this study, we first explored the relationship between these 2 types of gestures and found that individuals who produced co-thought gestures more frequently also produced co-speech gestures more frequently (Experiments 1 and 2). This suggests that the 2 types of gestures are generated from the same process. We then investigated whether both types of gestures can be generated from the representational use of the action generation process that also generates purposeful actions that have a direct physical impact on the world, such as manipulating an object or locomotion (the action generation hypothesis). To this end, we examined the effect of object affordances on the production of both types of gestures (Experiments 3 and 4). We found that individuals produced co-thought and co-speech gestures more often when the stimulus objects afforded action (objects with a smooth surface) than when they did not (objects with a spiky surface). These results support the action generation hypothesis for representational gestures. However, our findings are incompatible with the hypothesis that co-speech representational gestures are solely generated from the speech production process (the speech production hypothesis).

show abstract

A critical evaluation of models of gesture and speech production for understanding gesture in aphasia

Cited by 46 publications

References 38 publications

Co-verbal gestures among speakers with aphasia: Influence of aphasia severity, linguistic and semantic skills, and hemiplegia on gesture employment in oral discourse

Co-verbal gestures among speakers with aphasia: Influence of aphasia severity, linguistic and semantic skills, and hemiplegia on gesture employment in oral discourse

Communicative effectiveness of pantomime gesture in people with aphasia

Co-thought and co-speech gestures are generated by the same action generation process.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About