Gesture in the developing brain

Dick, Anthony Steven; Goldin‐Meadow, Susan; Solodkin, Ana; Small, Steven L.

doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2011.01100.x

Cited by 52 publications

(63 citation statements)

References 124 publications

(192 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…speech and gesture match, mismatch or complement each other). Even though these studies find left frontal and left posterior temporal cortices to be implicated in integrating gestures with speech, they vary with respect to whether they consistently find co-speech gesturerelated activation in the following regions: left IFG, bilateral posterior superior temporal sulcus (STSp) and middle temporal gyrus (MTGp) [34,[38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49]. Interestingly, these are the areas that are also involved when increased semantic processing is required during speech comprehension.…”

Section: Interactions Between Speech and Gesture Comprehensionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the Straube et al [47] study, iconic gestures as well as grooming movements, even though used as control, activated left IFG, when compared with no movement. Dick et al [39] also found left IFG to be sensitive to meaning modulation by iconic gestures; that is, more activation in this area for complementary (speech: 'I worked all night'; gesture: type) than redundant gestures accompanying speech (speech: 'I typed all night'; gesture: type). Complementary gestures add information and require more semantic processing than redundant gestures.…”

Section: Interactions Between Speech and Gesture Comprehensionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, not all studies have found greater activation in STSp that reflected a specific role in semantic integration of speech and gesture. For example, Dick et al [39] did not find gesture studies areas of the brain involved in disambiguating speech when it is produced with gesture (squares) and without it (circles) language studies Dick et al [39] Bedny et al [50] Gennari et al [51] Rodd et al [53] Snijders et al [54] Whitney et al [55] Zempleni et al…”

Section: Interactions Between Speech and Gesture Comprehensionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Hearing and seeing meaning in speech and gesture: insights from brain and behaviour

Özyürek

2014

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

148

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As we speak, we use not only the arbitrary form–meaning mappings of the speech channel but also motivated form–meaning correspondences, i.e. iconic gestures that accompany speech (e.g. inverted V-shaped hand wiggling across gesture space to demonstrate walking). This article reviews what we know about processing of semantic information from speech and iconic gestures in spoken languages during comprehension of such composite utterances. Several studies have shown that comprehension of iconic gestures involves brain activations known to be involved in semantic processing of speech: i.e. modulation of the electrophysiological recording component N400, which is sensitive to the ease of semantic integration of a word to previous context, and recruitment of the left-lateralized frontal–posterior temporal network (left inferior frontal gyrus (IFG), medial temporal gyrus (MTG) and superior temporal gyrus/sulcus (STG/S)). Furthermore, we integrate the information coming from both channels recruiting brain areas such as left IFG, posterior superior temporal sulcus (STS)/MTG and even motor cortex. Finally, this integration is flexible: the temporal synchrony between the iconic gesture and the speech segment, as well as the perceived communicative intent of the speaker, modulate the integration process. Whether these findings are special to gestures or are shared with actions or other visual accompaniments to speech (e.g. lips) or other visual symbols such as pictures are discussed, as well as the implications for a multimodal view of language.

show abstract

Section: Interactions Between Speech and Gesture Comprehensionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Interactions Between Speech and Gesture Comprehensionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Interactions Between Speech and Gesture Comprehensionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Hearing and seeing meaning in speech and gesture: insights from brain and behaviour

Özyürek

2014

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

148

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous works have investigated various aspects of the production, perception, processing, and development of gestures (e.g., Kelly & Church 1998;Kelly & Barr 1999;Mayberry & Nicoladis 2000;McNeil et al 2000;O'Neill et al 2002;Holler & Beattie 2003a;b;Holle & Gunter 2007;Özyürek et al 2007;Alibali et al 2009;Gullberg 2009;Kelly et al 2009;Kidd & Holler 2009;Botting et al 2010;Göksun et al 2010;Cartmill et al 2012;Dick et al 2012;Lücking et al 2012;Özçalişkan & Dimitrova 2013;Emmorey & Özyürek 2014;Hrabic et al 2014;Özyürek 2014;Wagner et al 2014). While many of these existing studies have examined the meanings that co-speech gestures contribute, they do not target the precise ways in which gestures may interact with the logical structure of the sentences with which they co-occur.…”

Section: Experimental Investigationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Co-speech gesture projection: Evidence from truth-value judgment and picture selection tasks

Tieu

Pasternak

Schlenker

et al. 2017

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two main analyses have been proposed to explain how co-speech gestures interact with logical operators. According to the Supplemental analysis (Ebert & Ebert 2014), co-speech gestures have the same semantic status as appositive relative clauses. According to the Cosuppositional analysis (Schlenker To appear a; b), co-speech gestures trigger a particular kind of presupposition. The sentence "John will not use the stairs", produced with an UP gesture (finger pointed upwards) is argued to give rise to the conditional presupposition that if John were to use the stairs, he would use the stairs in an upwards trajectory. Both the Supplemental and Cosuppositional analyses predict that inferences triggered by co-speech gestures should project out of the scope of operators, but not quite in the same way. We present an experimental investigation of the projection properties of the inferences arising from the co-speech gestures UP and DOWN in six different linguistic environments (plain affirmative and negative sentences, modal sentences containing "might", and quantified sentences containing "each", "none", and "exactly one"). Applying a reading detection analysis (Cremers & Chemla 2017) to the responses of a Truth Value Judgment Task and a Picture Selection Task, we find evidence for existential projection of the gestural inferences in the scope of "each", "none", and "exactly one", and, to some degree, local accommodation of the inferences. These results can be derived by the Cosuppositional analysis, in combination with an analysis of presupposition projection such as Beaver (2001), which predicts existential projection out of quantified structures; on the other hand, both findings are difficult to reconcile with the Supplemental analysis. Our projection results bring gestural inferences and verbal presuppositions closer together, but a remaining puzzle is why in quantified structures we obtain existential rather than universal inferences (Chemla 2009), the latter being the more standard finding in the presuppositional literature (though see Tieu et al. 2016 for evidence of universal projection of the same gestural inferences).

show abstract

“…Effective connectivity analysis was performed with SEM using the AMOS software. We followed the standard procedure to study neural systems connectivity modeling (61), recently implemented in fMRI (that provides comparable neural signals to those measured with fNIRS) (62)(63)(64). This approach included the following steps (described in detail in SI Materials and Methods): specification of the Fig.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Brain regions and functional interactions supporting early word recognition in the face of input variability

Benavides-Varela

Šiugždaitė

Gómez

et al. 2017

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Perception and cognition in infants have been traditionally investigated using habituation paradigms, assuming that babies' memories in laboratory contexts are best constructed after numerous repetitions of the very same stimulus in the absence of interference. A crucial, yet open, question regards how babies deal with stimuli experienced in a fashion similar to everyday learning situationsnamely, in the presence of interfering stimuli. To address this question, we used functional near-infrared spectroscopy to test 40 healthy newborns on their ability to encode words presented in concomitance with other words. The results evidenced a habituation-like hemodynamic response during encoding in the left-frontal region, which was associated with a progressive decrement of the functional connections between this region and the left-temporal, right-temporal, and right-parietal regions. In a recognition test phase, a characteristic neural signature of recognition recruited first the right-frontal region and subsequently the right-parietal ones. Connections originating from the right-temporal regions to these areas emerged when newborns listened to the familiar word in the test phase. These findings suggest a neural specialization at birth characterized by the lateralization of memory functions: the interplay between temporal and left-frontal regions during encoding and between temporo-parietal and right-frontal regions during recognition of speech sounds. Most critically, the results show that newborns are capable of retaining the sound of specific words despite hearing other stimuli during encoding. Thus, habituation designs that include various items may be as effective for studying early memory as repeated presentation of a single word.newborns | language | habituation | memory | fNIRS effective connectivity H abituation, namely the decreased response to repeated presentations of stimuli, has been widely used to investigate infant cognition. Both behavioral (1) and neuroimaging (2, 3) habituation paradigms are regularly implemented for assessing a wide range of mental processes including categorization, object representation, and memory in very young babies. Despite this long tradition, it remains elusive the extent to which the results of habituation studies (which often consist of massive repetition of a single stimulus) can inform our understanding of memory functions in everyday-like situations-that is, in the presence of various stimuli.Developmental studies in the language domain have uncovered basic perceptual (4-6), discrimination (7,8), and mnemonic capacities (9-14) in newborns and fetuses, supporting the hypothesis that memories for sounds begin to be established very early in life. However, infants' memory for specific words seems to be highly vulnerable to interference. Newborns are capable of remembering a single word that they have heard in a classic habituation paradigm (i.e., consecutive/massed repetitions) and after a silent pause but readily forget the word if interfering words are introduced in the...

show abstract

Gesture in the developing brain

Cited by 52 publications

References 124 publications

Hearing and seeing meaning in speech and gesture: insights from brain and behaviour

Hearing and seeing meaning in speech and gesture: insights from brain and behaviour

Co-speech gesture projection: Evidence from truth-value judgment and picture selection tasks

Brain regions and functional interactions supporting early word recognition in the face of input variability

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About