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

被引:23
作者
Jouravlev, Olessia [1 ,2 ]
Zheng, David [3 ]
Balewski, Zuzanna [1 ]
Pongos, Alvince Le Arnz [1 ]
Levan, Zena [4 ]
Goldin-Meadow, Susan [4 ]
Fedorenko, Evelina [1 ,5 ,6 ]
机构
[1] MIT, Cambridge, MA 02139 USA
[2] Carleton Univ, Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6, Canada
[3] Princeton Univ, Princeton, NJ 08544 USA
[4] Univ Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637 USA
[5] McGovern Inst Brain Res, Cambridge, MA 02139 USA
[6] Massachusetts Gen Hosp, Boston, MA 02114 USA
关键词
Co-speech gestures; Language network; Functional specificity; Multiple demand (MD) network; Communication; NEURAL INTEGRATION; BRAIN-REGIONS; FMRI; NETWORK; CORTEX; COMPREHENSION; COMMUNICATION; METAANALYSIS; ACQUISITION; VARIABILITY;
D O I
10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2019.107132
中图分类号
B84 [心理学]; C [社会科学总论]; Q98 [人类学];
学科分类号
03 ; 0303 ; 030303 ; 04 ; 0402 ;
摘要
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-Castanon 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.
引用
收藏
页数:16
相关论文
共 114 条
  • [1] Gesture for Linguists: A Handy Primer
    Abner, Natasha
    Cooperrider, Kensy
    Goldin-Meadow, Susan
    [J]. LANGUAGE AND LINGUISTICS COMPASS, 2015, 9 (11): : 437 - 449
  • [2] Adolphs Ralph, 2002, Behav Cogn Neurosci Rev, V1, P21, DOI 10.1177/1534582302001001003
  • [3] An asymmetrical relationship between verbal and visual thinking: Converging evidence from behavior and fMRI
    Amit, Elinor
    Hoeflin, Caitlyn
    Hamzah, Nada
    Fedorenko, Evelina
    [J]. NEUROIMAGE, 2017, 152 : 619 - 627
  • [4] Brain function overlaps when people observe emblems, speech, and grasping
    Andric, Michael
    Solodkin, Ana
    Buccino, Giovanni
    Goldin-Meadow, Susan
    Rizzolatti, Giacomo
    Small, Steven L.
    [J]. NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA, 2013, 51 (08) : 1619 - 1629
  • [5] [Anonymous], 1991, ELEM INF THEORY
  • [6] [Anonymous], 1921, Metron
  • [7] Neural responses to grammatically and lexically degraded speech
    Bautista, Alexa
    Wilson, Stephen M.
    [J]. LANGUAGE COGNITION AND NEUROSCIENCE, 2016, 31 (04) : 567 - 574
  • [8] Thinking the voice:: neural correlates of voice perception
    Belin, P
    Fecteau, S
    Bédard, C
    [J]. TRENDS IN COGNITIVE SCIENCES, 2004, 8 (03) : 129 - 135
  • [9] Benjamini Y, 2001, ANN STAT, V29, P1165
  • [10] Action observation network in childhood: a comparative fMRI study with adults
    Biagi, Laura
    Cioni, Giovanni
    Fogassi, Leonardo
    Guzzetta, Andrea
    Sgandurra, Giuseppina
    Tosetti, Michela
    [J]. DEVELOPMENTAL SCIENCE, 2016, 19 (06) : 1075 - 1086