ArticleThe Behavioral and brain sciences2017
The categorical role of structurally iconic signs.
Article in The Behavioral and brain sciences, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The unity of sense and mind: A review of cross-domain mapping.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Comment on
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Goldin-Meadow & Brentari (G-M&B) argue that, for sign language users, gesture - in contrast to linguistic sign - is iconic, highly variable, and similar to spoken language co-speech gesture. We discuss two examples (telicity and absolute gradable adjectives) that challenge the use of these criteria for distinguishing sign from gesture.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29342537What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.