The DOI matches its Crossref record; 56 of the 56 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 51 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Gestures, but not meaningless movements, lighten working memory load when explaining math
Open accessAbstract
Gesturing is ubiquitous in communication and serves an important function for listeners, who are able to glean meaningful information from the gestures they see. But gesturing also functions for speakers, whose own gestures reduce demands on their working memory. Here we ask whether gesture's beneficial effects on working memory stem from its properties as a rhythmic movement, or as a vehicle for representing meaning. We asked speakers to remember letters while explaining their solutions to math problems and producing varying types of movements. Speakers recalled significantly more letters when producing movements that coordinated with the meaning of the accompanying speech, i.e., when gesturing, than when producing meaningless movements or no movement. The beneficial effects that accrue to speakers when gesturing thus seem to stem not merely from the fact that their hands are moving, but from the fact that their hands are moving in coordination with the content of speech.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
Speakers recalled more letters while explaining math problems when they produced meaningful gestures than when they produced meaningless circular movements or kept still. The working-memory benefit of gesture therefore appears to depend on movement being coordinated with speech meaning, not merely on rhythmic hand movement.
Key findings
- Participants were more likely to remember the six consonants when gesturing during explanations than when producing meaningless movements (β = −.17, z = 3.23, p < .01) or no movement (β = −.13, z = 2.61, p < .01).
- The gesture advantage held in a between-subjects analysis limited to each participant’s first condition: meaningless movement β = −.30, z = 1.90, p = .057; no movement β = −.36, z = 2.30, p = .02.
- Instructed gesturing produced more gestures than spontaneous gesturing in prior work: mean 13 gestures, maximum 88, versus mean 6, maximum 33 in Wagner et al. (2004).
- Meaningless movement affected verbal production—more words (52.8 vs. 46.9 meaningful, 46.3 no movement) and fewer non-juncture filled pauses (.16 vs. .24 meaningful, .26 no movement)—but these verbal measures did not account for the working-memory benefit.
Methods
- 115 college students (62 females; mean age = 19.6 years) solved 30 quadratic factoring problems, then held six consonants in memory for 2.5 seconds while explaining their solutions under instructed conditions: meaningful movement/gesture, meaningless circular movement, or no movement.
- Because pilot testing showed three instruction changes were difficult, each participant completed two of the three conditions, yielding three groups; order was counterbalanced, and problems and memory lists were randomized.
- Recall of each of the six letters was analyzed with multilevel logistic regression including condition and trial as fixed effects and subject, math problem, and working-memory list as random effects; verbal explanations were also analyzed with multilevel regression.
Limitations
- The paper states that the gestures produced were primarily deictic and directed at visible entities, so findings might be restricted to gestures that point out objects in the immediate environment, though it cites other work suggesting the benefit may not be limited to such gestures.
- The paper states that the data do not pinpoint a mechanism for gesture’s working-memory benefit, only narrowing it to mechanisms involving gesture as a vehicle for meaning.
- Evident from the text: participants were college students performing a specific math-factoring task, gesture was experimentally instructed rather than spontaneous, and each participant completed only two of three conditions, which may limit generalizability and full within-subject comparison.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
33 Not checked yet · 21 Own result · 17 Own interpretation · 8 No basis given · 5 Own method
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“although they did appear to provide some benefit in terms of lexical access”
§ Gestures, but not meaningless movements, lighten working memory load when explaining math* > Discussion > Gesture, but not meaningless movement, lightens demand on working memory
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The data presented here demonstrate that working memory is a locus of interaction for speech and gesture and that gesturing reduces demand on working memory.”
§ Gestures, but not meaningless movements, lighten working memory load when explaining math* > Discussion > How does gesture lighten the load? Potential mechanisms
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Participants in the Meaningless Movement condition were less likely to produce a non-juncture filled pause (indicating facilitation in lexical access) than participants in the Meaningful Movement and No Movement conditions (estimated probability of producing a filled pause in each explanation: Meaningful Movement .24 vs. No Movement .26 vs. Meaningless Movement .16, βMeaningless Movement = −.56, z”
§ Gestures, but not meaningless movements, lighten working memory load when explaining math* > Results > Performance on the working memory task
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: All participants come from a population with normally distributed working memory capacities.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This hypothesis is consistent with our data in that gestures did not facilitate lexical access (as measured by non-juncture filled pauses) even when we did see an effect of movement on lexical access (again as measured by non-juncture filled pauses).”
§ Gestures, but not meaningless movements, lighten working memory load when explaining math* > Discussion > Gesture, but not meaningless movement, lightens demand on working memory
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Non-juncture filled pauses are a valid measure of lexical access.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“None of the measures of participants’ explanations reliably accounted for variability in recall of the letters (βword count = .0005, z = 0.32, ns; βfilled pauses = .15, z = 1.65, ns; βdeictic = −.10, z = 1.26, ns).”
§ Gestures, but not meaningless movements, lighten working memory load when explaining math* > Results > Performance on the working memory task
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: All participants come from a population with normally distributed working memory capacities.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Gesturing lightens demand on working memory even when the speaker is told to gesture.”
§ Gestures, but not meaningless movements, lighten working memory load when explaining math* > Discussion > Gesture, but not meaningless movement, lightens demand on working memory
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If anything, participants in the Meaningless Movement condition showed a benefit on one measure of lexical access (non-juncture filled pauses) relative to Meaningful Movement and No Movement, but without a concurrent benefit on working memory performance.”
§ Gestures, but not meaningless movements, lighten working memory load when explaining math* > Discussion > Gesture, but not meaningless movement, lightens demand on working memory
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We found no evidence that restricting movement led to decreases in participants’ verbal production or increases in their difficulties with lexical access, as has previously been reported in the literature (Rauscher, Krauss & Chen, 1996).”
§ Gestures, but not meaningless movements, lighten working memory load when explaining math* > Discussion > Gesture, but not meaningless movement, lightens demand on working memory
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The data presented here demonstrate that working memory is a locus of interaction for speech and gesture and that gesturing reduces demand on working memory.”
§ Gestures, but not meaningless movements, lighten working memory load when explaining math* > Discussion > How does gesture lighten the load? Potential mechanisms
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The gestures that were produced in our study were primarily deictic gestures directed at entities visible in the environment.”
§ Gestures, but not meaningless movements, lighten working memory load when explaining math* > Discussion > Gesture, but not meaningless movement, lightens demand on working memory
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 24
- It may state two separate claims as one. 5
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
In the paper
“Not surprisingly, we found that gestures were produced at a higher rate in this study than in previous studies that used an identical paradigm but without instructing participants to gesture (e.g., Wagner et al., 2004).”
- Also stated in: § Performance on the explanation task · plain
“Participants in Wagner et al. (2004) who were permitted (but not instructed) to gesture produced a mean of 6 gestures, and a maximum of 33 gestures, for each explanation on which they gestured. In contrast, when participants were instructed to gesture in the current study, they produced a mean of 13 gestures, and a maximum of 88 gestures, for each explanation.”
§ Gestures, but not meaningless movements, lighten working memory load when explaining math* > Results > Performance on the explanation task
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wagner et al., 2004
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Also stated in: § Performance on the explanation task · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, the overall pattern of performance for the experimental conditions remained the same: participants performed significantly worse in the No Movement condition (βNo Movement = −.13, z = 2.01, p = .044), and marginally worse in the Meaningless Movement condition (βMeaningless Movement = −.25, z = 1.76, p = .079), than participants in the Meaningful Movement condition.”
§ Gestures, but not meaningless movements, lighten working memory load when explaining math* > Results > Performance on the working memory task
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: All participants come from a population with normally distributed working memory capacities.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Participants in our study produced sequences of points to various elements of the problem, using the index finger as well as more complex pointing handshapes (see Figure 1 for an example), and thus produced gestures that were comparable to the gestures that participants spontaneously produced in previous studies2.”
§ Gestures, but not meaningless movements, lighten working memory load when explaining math* > Results > Performance on the explanation task
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There was a positive effect of trial; performance improved throughout the experiment (βtrial=.0085, z = 4.66, p<.0001).”
§ Gestures, but not meaningless movements, lighten working memory load when explaining math* > Results > Performance on the working memory task
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There was no reliable effect of condition for speech rate.”
§ Gestures, but not meaningless movements, lighten working memory load when explaining math* > Results > Performance on the working memory task
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Third, speakers are more likely to generate target words from definitions when gesture is permitted than when it is restricted (Frick-Horbury & Guttentag, 1998).”
§ Gestures, but not meaningless movements, lighten working memory load when explaining math* > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Frick-Horbury & Guttentag, 1998
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Including these trials in the analyses does not change the pattern of results described below.”
§ Gestures, but not meaningless movements, lighten working memory load when explaining math* > Methods > Procedure
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Order of conditions was counterbalanced within groups; problems and working memory lists were randomized across participants.”
§ Gestures, but not meaningless movements, lighten working memory load when explaining math* > Methods > Procedure
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our findings extend this phenomenon by demonstrating that gesture, be it spontaneous or experimentally elicited, not only facilitates learning but also benefits working memory processing.”
§ Gestures, but not meaningless movements, lighten working memory load when explaining math* > Discussion > Gesture, but not meaningless movement, lightens demand on working memory
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Eliminated trials accounted for 18% of the data.”
§ Gestures, but not meaningless movements, lighten working memory load when explaining math* > Methods > Procedure
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Gesturing thus seems to lighten the speaker’s working memory load and therefore serves a function for speakers as well as listeners.”
§ Gestures, but not meaningless movements, lighten working memory load when explaining math* > Discussion > Gesture, but not meaningless movement, lightens demand on working memory
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The meaningless movements that we taught our participants were, for the most part, produced in temporal synchrony with speech.”
§ Gestures, but not meaningless movements, lighten working memory load when explaining math* > Discussion > Gesture, but not meaningless movement, lightens demand on working memory
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This finding is consistent with reports that movement can facilitate lexical access and fluency (Chang & Hammond, 1987; Pellecchia, Shockley, & Turvey, 2005; Ravizza, 2003; Treffner & Peter, 2002; Whitall, 1996).”
§ Gestures, but not meaningless movements, lighten working memory load when explaining math* > Discussion > Gesture, but not meaningless movement, lightens demand on working memory
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Chang & Hammond, 1987
- Not checked yetcites Pellecchia, Shockley, & Turvey, 2005
- Not checked yetcites Ravizza, 2003
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
- Rests on an assumption: Non-juncture filled pauses are a valid measure of lexical access.
In the paper
“As a second example, Ravizza (2003) reported that speakers are more likely to resolve tip-of-the-tongue states when they are asked to rhythmically tap their fingers during recall than when they are asked to remain still.”
§ Gestures, but not meaningless movements, lighten working memory load when explaining math* > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ravizza (2003)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“One way that movement has been hypothesized to facilitate speech production is by increasing activity in motor areas that are used in speech production (Ravizza, 2003). Our data are consistent with this hypothesis.”
§ Gestures, but not meaningless movements, lighten working memory load when explaining math* > Discussion > Gesture, but not meaningless movement, lightens demand on working memory
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ravizza, 2003
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Thus, moving the hand in meaningless ways can improve fluency and lexical access.”
§ Gestures, but not meaningless movements, lighten working memory load when explaining math* > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Second, our participants were asked to explain the same type of math problem on every trial and therefore needed access to a restricted pool of lexical items for their explanations.”
§ Gestures, but not meaningless movements, lighten working memory load when explaining math* > Discussion > Gesture, but not meaningless movement, lightens demand on working memory
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Individuals have been found to manipulate aspects of their external worlds in order to ease their cognitive burden.”
§ Gestures, but not meaningless movements, lighten working memory load when explaining math* > Discussion > How does gesture lighten the load? Potential mechanisms
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Kirsh & Maglio, 1994
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In sum, speakers often gesture with their hands while talking, even when they do not appear to be having difficulty with lexical access or fluency.”
§ Gestures, but not meaningless movements, lighten working memory load when explaining math* > Discussion > How does gesture lighten the load? Potential mechanisms
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“For example, Tetris players rotate pieces on the screen in order to avoid rotating pieces mentally (Kirsh & Maglio, 1994), and map readers turn maps so that they are oriented in the direction of travel.”
§ Gestures, but not meaningless movements, lighten working memory load when explaining math* > Discussion > How does gesture lighten the load? Potential mechanisms
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Kirsh & Maglio, 1994
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Gesturing highlights the location of a number; speech gives its value.”
§ Gestures, but not meaningless movements, lighten working memory load when explaining math* > Discussion > How does gesture lighten the load? Potential mechanisms
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For the most part, speech conveys information categorically, relying on discrete units that are systematically combined in rule-governed fashion (but see Shintel, Nusbaum, & Okrent, 2006).”
§ Gestures, but not meaningless movements, lighten working memory load when explaining math* > Discussion > How does gesture lighten the load? Potential mechanisms
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, Tetris players rotate pieces on the screen in order to avoid rotating pieces mentally (Kirsh & Maglio, 1994), and map readers turn maps so that they are oriented in the direction of travel.”
§ Gestures, but not meaningless movements, lighten working memory load when explaining math* > Discussion > How does gesture lighten the load? Potential mechanisms
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, in the math factoring problems used in our study, the location of a number, more than its value, constrains the particular mathematical operations that must be performed on that number to solve the problem.”
§ Gestures, but not meaningless movements, lighten working memory load when explaining math* > Discussion > How does gesture lighten the load? Potential mechanisms
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“But signers gesture along with their signs (Emmorey, 1999), and those gestures are, almost by definition, analog in form.”
§ Gestures, but not meaningless movements, lighten working memory load when explaining math* > Discussion > How does gesture lighten the load? Potential mechanisms
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Emmorey, 1999
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Gesturing highlights the location of a number; speech gives its value.”
§ Gestures, but not meaningless movements, lighten working memory load when explaining math* > Discussion > How does gesture lighten the load? Potential mechanisms
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“In addition, our findings make it clear that it is not moving the body per se that has an impact on working memory—it’s using the body as a representational vehicle (see also Goldin-Meadow & Beilock, 2010).”
§ Gestures, but not meaningless movements, lighten working memory load when explaining math* > Discussion > How does gesture lighten the load? Potential mechanisms
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Goldin-Meadow & Beilock, 2010
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Differences in management of attention are related to differences in working memory capacity (Cowan et al., 2005; Engle, 2002).”
§ Gestures, but not meaningless movements, lighten working memory load when explaining math* > Discussion > How does gesture lighten the load? Potential mechanisms
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cowan et al., 2005
- Not checked yetcites Engle, 2002
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Although produced in the manual modality, sign languages such as American Sign Language are composed of discrete categories systematically combined in rule-governed fashion (Bellugi & Studdert-Kennedy, 1980; Klima & Bellugi, 1979).”
§ Gestures, but not meaningless movements, lighten working memory load when explaining math* > Discussion > How does gesture lighten the load? Potential mechanisms
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bellugi & Studdert-Kennedy, 1980
- Not checked yetcites Klima & Bellugi, 1979
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The authors state this as an assumption.
All participants come from a population with normally distributed working memory capacities.
“under the assumption that all participants come from a population with normally distributed working memory capacities”
The paper relies on this without support.
Giving participants instructions increases demand on working memory.
“Moreover, giving participants instructions ought to increase demand on working memory, making it less likely to observe a beneficial effect of gesture on working memory and thus working against our hypothesis.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Participants in the Meaningful Movement condition only had to remember to do what one typically does on this task (i.e., gesture).
“in contrast to participants in the Meaningful Movement condition, who only had to remember to do what one typically does on this task (i.e., gesture).”
The paper relies on this without support.
Trials with more than 33 gestures are clearly responsive to an experimental instruction rather than typical behavior.
“when speakers were clearly producing behaviors to comply with an experimental instruction rather than simply producing the same behaviors they would have produced without instruction.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Non-juncture filled pauses are a valid measure of lexical access.
“participants in the Meaningless Movement condition showed a benefit on one measure of lexical access (non-juncture filled pauses)”
“gestures did not facilitate lexical access (as measured by non-juncture filled pauses)”
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“It has been shown that making gestures can be used for cognitive offloading of information during problem-solving, leading to a reduction in working memory load (Wagner-Cook et al. 2012; Goldin-Meadow et al. 2001; Ping and Goldin-Meadow 2010; Risko and Gilbert 2016).”
From Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design: 20 Years Later (2019) · cites this paper as Wagner-Cook et al. 2012
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Statistics recomputed
Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.
- Consistentz = 4.66reported p < .0001 · recomputed p < .001
“z = 4.66, p < .0001”
- Consistentz = 3.23reported p < .01 · recomputed p = .001
“z = 3.23, p < .01”
- Consistentz = 2.61reported p < .01 · recomputed p = .009
“z = 2.61, p < .01”
- Consistentz = 4.84reported p < .0001 · recomputed p < .001
“z = 4.84, p < .0001”
- Consistentz = 1.9reported p = .057 · recomputed p = .057
“z = 1.90, p = .057”
- Consistentz = 2.3reported p = .02 · recomputed p = .021
“z = 2.30, p = .02”
- Consistentz = 2.62reported p < .01 · recomputed p = .009
“z = 2.62, p < .01”
- Consistentz = 1.12reported n.s. · recomputed p = .263
“z = 1.12, ns”
- Consistentz = 0.77reported n.s. · recomputed p = .441
“z = 0.77, ns”
- Consistentz = 5.58reported p < .0001 · recomputed p < .001
“z = 5.58, p < .0001”
- Consistentz = 0.32reported n.s. · recomputed p = .749
“z = 0.32, ns”
- Consistentz = 1.65reported n.s. · recomputed p = .099
“z = 1.65, ns”
- Consistentz = 1.26reported n.s. · recomputed p = .208
“z = 1.26, ns”
- Consistentz = 2.01reported p = .044 · recomputed p = .044
“z = 2.01, p = .044”
- Consistentz = 1.76reported p = .079 · recomputed p = .078
“z = 1.76, p = .079”
- Consistentz = 2.93reported p < .01 · recomputed p = .003
“z = 2.93, p < .01”
- Consistentz = 2.7reported p < .01 · recomputed p = .007
“z = 2.70, p < .01”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Gestures, but not meaningless movements, lighten working memory load when explaining math* > Results > Performance on the working memory task
“To explore whether these differences in verbal production could account for the difference in demand on working memory shown in Figure 1”
§ Gestures, but not meaningless movements, lighten working memory load when explaining math* > Results > Performance on the working memory task
“More importantly, as can be seen in Figure 2, participants were more likely to remember the working memory items when they gestured while explaining the problem than when they produced meaningless movements”
Citations
Cites
Hand and mind: what gestures reveal about thought
(1993) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.30-2492 · Cited by 5,089
Cohen, J., MacWhinney, B., Flatt, M., & Provost, J. (1993) · Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers · doi:10.3758/bf03204507 · Cited by 2,802
Working Memory Capacity as Executive Attention
Engle, R. W. (2002) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00160 · Cited by 2,507
Glenberg, A. M., & Kaschak, M. P. (2002) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/bf03196313 · Cited by 2,361
Hand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal about Thought
Feyereisen, P., & McNeill, D. (1994) · The American Journal of Psychology · doi:10.2307/1423299 · Cited by 1,705
On Distinguishing Epistemic from Pragmatic Action
Kirsh, D., & Maglio, P. (1994) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1804_1 · Cited by 1,641 · cited 2×
“For example, Tetris players rotate pieces on the screen to avoid rotating pieces mentally (Kirsh & Maglio, 1994 ), and map readers turn maps so that they are oriented in the direction of travel.”
BackgroundWhere mathematics comes from: how the embodied mind brings mathematics into being
(2001) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.38-6230 · Cited by 1,508
Where Mathematics Comes From: How the Embodied Mind Brings Mathematics into Being
Nunemacher, J. L., Lakoff, G. P., & Núñez, R. E. (2002) · American Mathematical Monthly · doi:10.2307/3072449 · Cited by 1,449
Stokoe, W. C. (1980) · Language · doi:10.2307/413507 · Cited by 1,302
On the capacity of attention: Its estimation and its role in working memory and cognitive aptitudes
Cowan, N., Elliott, E. M., Scott Saults, J., Morey, C. C., Mattox, S., Hismjatullina, A., & Conway, A. R. A. (2005) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2004.12.001 · Cited by 1,144
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Baddeley A., 1986, Working memory
- Bellugi U., 1980, Signed and spoken language: Biological constraints on linguistic form
- Goldin-Meadow S., 1999, The descent of mind, 155
- Klima E. S., 1979, The signs of language
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design: 20 Years Later
Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (2019) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-019-09465-5 · Cited by 2,337
Cognitive-Load Theory: Methods to Manage Working Memory Load in the Learning of Complex Tasks
Paas, F., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2020) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0963721420922183 · Cited by 461
Gesture's Role in Speaking, Learning, and Creating Language
Susan Goldin-meadow, A., & Alibali, M. W. (2012) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143802 · Cited by 455
How do gestures influence thinking and speaking? The gesture-for-conceptualization hypothesis.
Kita, S., Alibali, M. W., & Chu, M. (2017) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/rev0000059 · Cited by 342
Gesture as simulated action: Revisiting the framework
Hostetter, A. B., & Alibali, M. W. (2018) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-018-1548-0 · Cited by 250
Metadata
- Authors
- Cook, S. W., Yip, T. K., & Goldin-Meadow, S.
- Affiliations
- University of Iowa (US)
- University of Chicago (US)
- Corresponding author
- Cook, Susan Wagner
- ORCID
- Cook, Susan Wagner
- Venue
- Language and Cognitive Processes
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2012-05
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 594-610
- ISSN
- 0169-0965 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-0732
- PMC
- PMC3658147
- OpenAlex
- W1980250657
- Cited by
- 192
- References
- 51
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 10.39
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Language and Cognitive Processes (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01HD047450)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Hearing Impairment and Communication
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies
- Keywords
- gesturing, working memory, mathematical problem solving, speech-gesture coordination, letter recall, verbal explanation
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
