ArticleJournal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition2025
Understanding discourse in face-to-face settings: The impact of multimodal cues and listening conditions.
Article in Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Your Mileage May Vary: Individuals with Primary Progressive Aphasia Differ Widely in Their Utilization of Congruent Prosodic and Visual Information During Sentence Comprehension.Brain sciences · 2026Article
- Prior expectations guide multisensory integration during face-to-face communication.PLoS computational biology · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In face-to-face contexts, discourse is accompanied by various cues, like gestures and mouth movements. Here, we asked whether the presence of gestures and mouth movements benefits discourse comprehension under clear and challenging listening conditions and, if so, whether this multimodal benefit depends on the communicative environment in which interlocutors are situated. In two online experiments, participants watched videoclips of a speaker telling stories, and they answered yes-no questions about the content of each story. The speaker in the videos was spontaneously gesturing (or kept her hands still) and was wearing a surgical mask (or had her lips visible). The experiments differed in the communicative environment. In Experiment 1, the speaker narrated stories in silence, whereas the listener (participants) heard them in clear or degraded speech conditions (analogous to watching the news on TV in a quiet or noisy café). In Experiment 2, the speaker narrated the stories once in silence and once while listening to background noise, and the listener heard them in clear or degraded speech condition, respectively (analogous to listening to a friend in a quiet or noisy café). Across the experiments, we found that cospeech gestures facilitated discourse comprehension regardless of the listening conditions or the presence of a mask. In contrast, mouth movements were primarily helpful in challenging listening conditions. These findings indicate that both cues matter to listeners but to a different extent. Moreover, we found that the multimodal benefit to comprehension was similar regardless of the communicative environment. Thus, this study demonstrates the importance of both cospeech gestures and mouth movements to discourse comprehension, offering insights into the dynamic interplay between these cues under different communicative environments. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
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.