SynthesisNeuropsychology review2025
The Neurocognitive Bases of Meaningful Intransitive Gestures: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Neuropsychological Studies.
Synthesis in Neuropsychology review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Beyond the moving hand: How gesture meaning shapes visual attention during observation and imitation.Psychological research · 2026Article
- Limb apraxia and active inference in the visuomotor pathways.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Review
- PICTURE-IT: a pilot randomized cross-over trial encouraging right-hemisphere engagement for the treatment of aphasia via telemedicine.Aphasiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Researchers and clinicians have long used meaningful intransitive (i.e., not tool-related; MFI) gestures to assess apraxia-a complex and frequent motor-cognitive disorder. Nevertheless, the neurocognitive bases of these gestures remain incompletely understood. Models of apraxia have assumed that meaningful intransitive gestures depend on either long-term memory (i.e., semantic memory and action lexicons) stored in the left hemisphere, or social cognition and the right hemisphere. This meta-analysis of 42 studies reports the performance of 2659 patients with either left or right hemisphere damage in tests of meaningful intransitive gestures, as compared to other gestures (i.e., MFT or meaningful transitive and MLI or meaningless intransitive) and cognitive tests. The key findings are as follows: (1) deficits of meaningful intransitive gestures are more frequent and severe after left than right hemisphere lesions, but they have been reported in both groups; (2) we found a transitivity effect in patients with lesions of the left hemisphere (i.e., meaningful transitive gestures more difficult than meaningful intransitive gestures) but a "reverse" transitivity effect in patients with lesions of the right hemisphere (i.e., meaningful transitive gestures easier than meaningful intransitive gestures); (3) there is a strong association between meaningful intransitive and transitive (but not meaningless) gestures; (4) isolated deficits of meaningful intransitive gestures are more frequent in cases with right than left hemisphere lesions; (5) these deficits may occur in the absence of language and semantic memory impairments; (6) meaningful intransitive gesture performance seems to vary according to the emotional content of gestures (i.e., body-centered gestures and emotional valence-intensity). These findings are partially consistent with the social cognition hypothesis. Methodological recommendations are given for future studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38448754What 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.