ArticleNeuropsychologia2019
Speech-accompanying gestures are not processed by the language-processing mechanisms.
Article in Neuropsychologia, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Functional neuroanatomy of language without speech: An ALE meta-analysis of sign language.Human brain mapping · 2021Pooled it
- Article
- A distinct set of brain areas process prosody-the melody of speech.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- The cerebellar components of the human language network.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Tact Training with Augmentative Gestural Support for Language Disorder and Challenging Behaviors: A Case Study in an Italian Community-Based Setting.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Linguistic inputs must be syntactically parsable to fully engage the language network.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- Dissociating language and thought in large language models.Trends in cognitive sciences · 2024Review
- The language network as a natural kind within the broader landscape of the human brain.Nature reviews. Neuroscience · 2024Review
- Functional characterization of the language network of polyglots and hyperpolyglots with precision fMRI.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2024Article
- Functional characterization of the language network of polyglots and hyperpolyglots with precision fMRI.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- The Language Network Reliably "Tracks" Naturalistic Meaningful Nonverbal Stimuli.Neurobiology of language (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2024Article
- The human language system, including its inferior frontal component in "Broca's area," does not support music perception.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2023Article
- Probabilistic atlas for the language network based on precision fMRI data from >800 individuals.Scientific data · 2022Article
- Differential Tracking of Linguistic vs. Mental State Content in Naturalistic Stimuli by Language and Theory of Mind (ToM) Brain Networks.Neurobiology of language (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2022Article
- More than words: word predictability, prosody, gesture and mouth movements in natural language comprehension.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2021Article
- Creative Action at a Distance: A Conceptual Framework for Embodied Performance With Robotic Actors.Frontiers in robotics and AI · 2021Article
- The Language Network Is Recruited but Not Required for Nonverbal Event Semantics.Neurobiology of language (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2021Article
- Comprehension of computer code relies primarily on domain-general executive brain regions.eLife · 2020Article
- No evidence for differences among language regions in their temporal receptive windows.NeuroImage · 2020Article
- The Domain-General Multiple Demand (MD) Network Does Not Support Core Aspects of Language Comprehension: A Large-Scale fMRI Investigation.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.