Cited by 230Language, Discourse, Communication StrategiesVisual and Cognitive Learning ProcessesHearing Impairment and Communication

Gesturing Saves Cognitive Resources When Talking About Nonpresent Objects

Open access
Ping, Raedy, Goldin‐Meadow, Susan·2010·Cognitive Science

Abstract

In numerous experimental contexts, gesturing has been shown to lighten a speaker’s cognitive load. However, in all of these experimental paradigms, the gestures have been directed to items in the “here‐and‐now.” This study attempts to generalize gesture’s ability to lighten cognitive load. We demonstrate here that gesturing continues to confer cognitive benefits when speakers talk about objects that are not present, and therefore cannot be directly indexed by gesture. These findings suggest that gesturing confers its benefits by more than simply tying abstract speech to the objects directly visible in the environment. Moreover, we show that the cognitive benefit conferred by gesturing is greater when novice learners produce gestures that add to the information expressed in speech than when they produce gestures that convey the same information as speech, suggesting that it is gesture’s meaningfulness that gives it the ability to affect working memory load.

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 · 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01102.x

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Beilock S Goldin-Meadow S Gesture grounds thought in action 2010 Under review

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ping, R., & Goldin‐Meadow, S.
Affiliations
University of Chicago (US)
Corresponding author
Ping, Raedy
Venue
Cognitive Science
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-05
Volume
34
Issue
4
Pages
602-619
ISSN
  • 0364-0213 (ISSN-L)
  • 1551-6709
OpenAlex
W2058646341
Cited by
230
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 4
FWCI
67.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cognitive Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01HD047450)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Hearing Impairment and Communication
Keywords
gesturing, cognitive load, working memory, gesture-speech interaction, novice learners, speech production

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