Literature DB >> 31276684

Speech-accompanying gestures are not processed by the language-processing mechanisms.

Olessia Jouravlev1, David Zheng2, Zuzanna Balewski3, Alvince Le Arnz Pongos3, Zena Levan4, Susan Goldin-Meadow5, Evelina Fedorenko6.   

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.
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Co-speech gestures; Communication; Functional specificity; Language network; Multiple demand (MD) network

Year:  2019        PMID: 31276684      PMCID: PMC6708375          DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2019.107132

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neuropsychologia        ISSN: 0028-3932            Impact factor:   3.139


  91 in total

1.  An algorithmic method for functionally defining regions of interest in the ventral visual pathway.

Authors:  J B Julian; Evelina Fedorenko; Jason Webster; Nancy Kanwisher
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2012-03-03       Impact factor: 6.556

2.  Intention processing in communication: a common brain network for language and gestures.

Authors:  Ivan Enrici; Mauro Adenzato; Stefano Cappa; Bruno G Bara; Marco Tettamanti
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2010-10-18       Impact factor: 3.225

Review 3.  Neural coding within human brain areas involved in actions.

Authors:  Jason P Gallivan; Jody C Culham
Journal:  Curr Opin Neurobiol       Date:  2015-04-11       Impact factor: 6.627

4.  Syntactic and semantic modulation of neural activity during auditory sentence comprehension.

Authors:  Colin Humphries; Jeffrey R Binder; David A Medler; Einat Liebenthal
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 3.225

5.  Neural correlates of the processing of co-speech gestures.

Authors:  Henning Holle; Thomas C Gunter; Shirley-Ann Rüschemeyer; Andreas Hennenlotter; Marco Iacoboni
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2007-11-13       Impact factor: 6.556

6.  The EEG and fMRI signatures of neural integration: An investigation of meaningful gestures and corresponding speech.

Authors:  Yifei He; Helge Gebhardt; Miriam Steines; Gebhard Sammer; Tilo Kircher; Arne Nagels; Benjamin Straube
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2015-04-18       Impact factor: 3.139

7.  The differentiation of iconic and metaphoric gestures: common and unique integration processes.

Authors:  Benjamin Straube; Antonia Green; Bianca Bromberger; Tilo Kircher
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 5.038

8.  The mismatch between gesture and speech as an index of transitional knowledge.

Authors:  R B Church; S Goldin-Meadow
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  1986-06

9.  Functional neuroanatomy of gesture-speech integration in children varies with individual differences in gesture processing.

Authors:  Özlem Ece Demir-Lira; Salomi S Asaridou; Anjali Raja Beharelle; Anna E Holt; Susan Goldin-Meadow; Steven L Small
Journal:  Dev Sci       Date:  2018-03-08

10.  High-level language processing regions are not engaged in action observation or imitation.

Authors:  Brianna L Pritchett; Caitlyn Hoeflin; Kami Koldewyn; Eyal Dechter; Evelina Fedorenko
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2018-08-29       Impact factor: 2.714

View more
  7 in total

Review 1.  Broca's Area Is Not a Natural Kind.

Authors:  Evelina Fedorenko; Idan A Blank
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2020-02-20       Impact factor: 20.229

2.  The Domain-General Multiple Demand (MD) Network Does Not Support Core Aspects of Language Comprehension: A Large-Scale fMRI Investigation.

Authors:  Evgeniia Diachek; Idan Blank; Matthew Siegelman; Josef Affourtit; Evelina Fedorenko
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2020-04-21       Impact factor: 6.167

3.  More than words: word predictability, prosody, gesture and mouth movements in natural language comprehension.

Authors:  Ye Zhang; Diego Frassinelli; Jyrki Tuomainen; Jeremy I Skipper; Gabriella Vigliocco
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2021-07-21       Impact factor: 5.349

4.  No evidence for differences among language regions in their temporal receptive windows.

Authors:  Idan A Blank; Evelina Fedorenko
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2020-05-11       Impact factor: 7.400

5.  Comprehension of computer code relies primarily on domain-general executive brain regions.

Authors:  Anna A Ivanova; Shashank Srikant; Yotaro Sueoka; Hope H Kean; Riva Dhamala; Una-May O'Reilly; Marina U Bers; Evelina Fedorenko
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2020-12-15       Impact factor: 8.140

6.  Probabilistic atlas for the language network based on precision fMRI data from >800 individuals.

Authors:  Hope Kean; Olessia Jouravlev; Lara Rakocevic; Brianna Pritchett; Matthew Siegelman; Caitlyn Hoeflin; Alvincé Pongos; Idan A Blank; Melissa Kline Struhl; Anna Ivanova; Benjamin Lipkin; Greta Tuckute; Josef Affourtit; Hannah Small; Zachary Mineroff; Steven Shannon; Aalok Sathe; Malte Hoffmann; Alfonso Nieto-Castañón; Evelina Fedorenko
Journal:  Sci Data       Date:  2022-08-29       Impact factor: 8.501

7.  Functional neuroanatomy of language without speech: An ALE meta-analysis of sign language.

Authors:  Patrick C Trettenbrein; Giorgio Papitto; Angela D Friederici; Emiliano Zaccarella
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2020-10-28       Impact factor: 5.038

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.