CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 39Neurobiology of Language and BilingualismAction Observation and SynchronizationHearing Impairment and Communication

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 111 of the 114 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Speech-accompanying gestures are not processed by the language-processing mechanisms

Open access
Jouravlev, Olessia, Zheng, David, Balewski, Zuzanna, Le Arnz Pongos, Alvince, Levan, Zena, Goldin-Meadow, Susan, Fedorenko, Evelina·2019·Neuropsychologia
DOI 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2019.107132PMC PMC6708375
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Speech-accompanying gestures constitute one information channel during communication. Some have argued that processing gestures engages the brain regions that support language comprehension. However, studies that have been used as evidence for shared mechanisms suffer from one or more of the following limitations: they (a) have not directly compared activations for gesture and language processing in the same study and relied on the fallacious reverse inference (Poldrack, 2006) for interpretation, (b) relied on traditional group analyses, which are bound to overestimate overlap (e.g., Nieto-Castañon and Fedorenko, 2012), (c) failed to directly compare the magnitudes of response (e.g., Chen et al., 2017), and (d) focused on gestures that may have activated the corresponding linguistic representations (e.g., "emblems"). To circumvent these limitations, we used fMRI to examine responses to gesture processing in language regions defined functionally in individual participants (e.g., Fedorenko et al., 2010), including directly comparing effect sizes, and covering a broad range of spontaneously generated co-speech gestures. Whenever speech was present, language regions responded robustly (and to a similar degree regardless of whether the video contained gestures or grooming movements). In contrast, and critically, responses in the language regions were low - at or slightly above the fixation baseline - when silent videos were processed (again, regardless of whether they contained gestures or grooming movements). Brain regions outside of the language network, including some in close proximity to its regions, differentiated between gestures and grooming movements, ruling out the possibility that the gesture/grooming manipulation was too subtle. Behavioral studies on the critical video materials further showed robust differentiation between the gesture and grooming conditions. In summary, contra prior claims, language-processing regions do not respond to co-speech gestures in the absence of speech, suggesting that these regions are selectively driven by linguistic input (e.g., Fedorenko et al., 2011). Although co-speech gestures are uncontroversially important in communication, they appear to be processed in brain regions distinct from those that support language comprehension, similar to other extra-linguistic communicative signals, like facial expressions and prosody.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2019.107132

Cites

111 of 111 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Fedorenko, 2018, Word meanings and sentence structure recruit the same set of fronto-temporal regions during comprehension, bioRxiv
  2. 2013, vol. 1

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 39

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Jouravlev, O., Zheng, D., Balewski, Z., Le Arnz Pongos, A., Levan, Z., Goldin-Meadow, S., & Fedorenko, E.
Affiliations
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
  • Princeton University (US)
  • University of Chicago (US)
  • McGovern Institute for Brain Research (US)
Corresponding author
Jouravlev, Olessia
ORCID
Venue
Neuropsychologia
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-09
Volume
132
Pages
107132
ISSN
0028-3932 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2019.107132
PMC
PMC6708375
OpenAlex
W2953794415
Cited by
39
References
114
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 2
FWCI
2.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Neuropsychologia (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders
  • Agence Nationale de la Recherche
  • Simons Foundation
  • National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Action Observation and Synchronization
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Hearing Impairment and Communication
Keywords
co-speech gestures, language comprehension, shared neural mechanisms, effect size comparison, facial expressions, prosody
MeSH terms
Adult, Brain Mapping, Cerebral Cortex, Female, Gestures, Humans, Language, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Nerve Net, Speech Perception, Visual Perception, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review