Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31087589›Full record

ArticleCognitive science2019

Recipient Design in Communicative Pointing.

Tobias Winner, Luc Selen, Anke Murillo Oosterwijk, Lennart Verhagen, W Pieter Medendorp, Iris van Rooij, Ivan Toni

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cognitive science, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Tobias WinnerDonders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University.
Luc SelenDonders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University.
Anke Murillo OosterwijkDonders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University.
Lennart VerhagenDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford.
W Pieter MedendorpDonders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University.
Iris van RooijDonders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University.
Ivan ToniDonders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A long-standing debate in the study of human communication centers on the degree to which communicators tune their communicative signals (e.g., speech, gestures) for specific addressees, as opposed to taking a neutral or egocentric perspective. This tuning, called recipient design, is known to occur under special conditions (e.g., when errors in communication need to be corrected), but several researchers have argued that it is not an intrinsic feature of human communication, because that would be computationally too demanding. In this study, we contribute to this debate by studying a simple communicative behavior, communicative pointing, under conditions of successful (error-free) communication. Using an information-theoretic measure, called legibility, we present evidence of recipient design in communicative pointing. The legibility effect is present early in the movement, suggesting that it is an intrinsic part of the communicative plan. Moreover, it is reliable only from the viewpoint of the addressee, suggesting that the motor plan is tuned to the addressee. These findings suggest that recipient design is an intrinsic feature of human communication.

Indexed as

CommunicationGesturesAdolescentAdultFemaleHumansMaleYoung AdultCommunicationLegibilityPerspective takingPointingRecipient design

Identifiers

PMID31087589
PMCPMC6594194

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.