ReviewPhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2022
Visual bodily signals as core devices for coordinating minds in interaction.
Review in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.
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
20 citing papers in PubMed, 54 citations in OpenAlex.
- When grooming stalls: Assessing communicative repair, negotiation, and progressivity in chimpanzees.iScience · 2026Article
- Parental speech and gesture scaffolding moderate the neural dynamics of parent-child synchrony.Developmental cognitive neuroscience · 2026Article
- Self-reported expressibility predicts communicative success: Open dataset, validation, and simulation.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
- Social context shapes facial dynamics: human and machine decoding of conversation topics.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Prior expectations guide multisensory integration during face-to-face communication.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- The artificial intelligence technology for immersion experience and space design in museum exhibition.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Understanding discourse in face-to-face settings: The impact of multimodal cues and listening conditions.Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition · 2025Article
- Eyebrow movements as signals of communicative problems in human face-to-face interaction.Royal Society open science · 2025Article
- Article
- Demonstratives as attention tools: Evidence of mentalistic representations within language.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
- Face2face: advancing the science of social interaction.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2023Article
- Unraveling dyadic psycho-physiology of social presence between strangers during an audio drama - a signal-analysis approach.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- Multimodal processing in face-to-face interactions: A bridging link between psycholinguistics and sensory neuroscience.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2023Article
- Human-like interactions prompt people to take a robot's perspective.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- Verbal Communication with the Patient Is Not Enough: The Six Languages of the Sick.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2022Article
- The interaction engine: cuteness selection and the evolution of the interactional base for language.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2022Review
- Revisiting the human 'interaction engine': comparative approaches to social action coordination.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2022Article
- Showing and giving: from incipient to conventional forms.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2022Article
- Coordinating social action: a primer for the cross-species investigation of communicative repair.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2022Review
- Parents spontaneously scaffold the formation of conversational pacts with their children.Child developmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The view put forward here is that visual bodily signals play a core role in human communication and the coordination of minds. Critically, this role goes far beyond referential and propositional meaning. The human communication system that we consider to be the explanandum in the evolution of language thus is not spoken language. It is, instead, a deeply multimodal, multilayered, multifunctional system that developed-and survived-owing to the extraordinary flexibility and adaptability that it endows us with. Beyond their undisputed iconic power, visual bodily signals (manual and head gestures, facial expressions, gaze, torso movements) fundamentally contribute to key pragmatic processes in modern human communication. This contribution becomes particularly evident with a focus that includes non-iconic manual signals, non-manual signals and signal combinations. Such a focus also needs to consider meaning encoded not just via iconic mappings, since kinematic modulations and interaction-bound meaning are additional properties equipping the body with striking pragmatic capacities. Some of these capacities, or its precursors, may have already been present in the last common ancestor we share with the great apes and may qualify as early versions of the components constituting the hypothesized interaction engine. This article is part of the theme issue 'Revisiting the human 'interaction engine': comparative approaches to social action coordination'.
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.