Iconic gesture-speech integration is a relatively recent field of investigation with numerous researchers studying its various aspects. The results obtained are just as diverse. The definition of iconic gestures is often overlooked in the interpretations of results. Furthermore, while most behavioral studies have demonstrated an advantage of bimodal presentation, brain activity studies show a diversity of results regarding the brain regions involved in the processing of this integration. Clinical studies also yield mixed results, some suggesting parallel processing channels, others a (...) unique and integrated channel. This review aims to draw attention to the methodological variations in research on iconic gesture-speech integration and how they impact conclusions regarding the underlying phenomena. It will also attempt to draw together the findings from other relevant research and suggest potential areas for further investigation in order to better understand processes at play during speech integration process. (shrink)

When young children learn to use language, they start to use their hands in co‐verbal gesturing. There are, however, considerable differences between children, and it is not completely understood what these individual differences are due to. We studied how children at 4 years of age employ speech and iconic gestures to convey meaning in different kinds of spatial event descriptions, and how this relates to their cognitive abilities. Focusing on spontaneous illustrations of actions, we applied a semantic feature (SF) analysis (...) to characterize combinations of speech and gesture meaning and related them to the child's visual‐spatial abilities or abstract/concrete reasoning abilities (measured using the standardized SON‐R test). Results show that children with higher cognitive abilities convey significantly more meaning via gesture and less solely via speech. These findings suggest that young children's use of cospeech representational gesturing is positively related to their mental representation and reasoning abilities. (shrink)

Gestures—hand movements that accompany speech and express ideas—can help children learn how to solve problems, flexibly generalize learning to novel problem‐solving contexts, and retain what they have learned. But does it matter who is doing the gesturing? We know that producing gesture leads to better comprehension of a message than watching someone else produce gesture. But we do not know how producing versus observing gesture impacts deeper learning outcomes such as generalization and retention across time. Moreover, not all children benefit (...) equally from gesture instruction, suggesting that there are individual differences that may play a role in who learns from gesture. Here, we consider two factors that might impact whether gesture leads to learning, generalization, and retention after mathematical instruction: (1) whether children see gesture or do gesture and (2) whether a child spontaneously gestures before instruction when explaining their problem‐solving reasoning. For children who spontaneously gestured before instruction, both doing and seeing gesture led to better generalization and retention of the knowledge gained than a comparison manipulative action. For children who did not spontaneously gesture before instruction, doing gesture was less effective than the comparison action for learning, generalization, and retention. Importantly, this learning deficit was specific to gesture, as these children did benefit from doing the comparison manipulative action. Our findings are the first evidence that a child's use of a particular representational format for communication (gesture) directly predicts that child's propensity to learn from using the same representational format. (shrink)

Research has shown that gesture production supports learning across a number of tasks. It is unclear, however, whether gesture production during encoding can support narrative recall, who gesture production benefits most, and whether certain types of gestures are more beneficial than others. This study, therefore, investigated the effect of gesture production during the encoding of a narrative on subsequent narrative recall, and whether individuals’ levels of verbal and nonverbal memory moderated this effect. Additionally, this study investigated whether producing certain types (...) of gestures during encoding was more beneficial than others. Participants (N = 90, Mage = 20.43) read aloud a narrative while under instruction to produce gestures, under no specific instruction to produce gestures, or were required to keep their hands behind their back to prevent them from gesturing. Participants completed measures assessing verbal and nonverbal memory. While gesture production during encoding benefitted narrative recall (as measured through specific questions), verbal memory moderated the effect, such that gesture production was more beneficial for individuals with higher than lower verbal memory. Furthermore, producing representational gestures during encoding benefitted recall of points in the narrative at which those gestures were produced, while beat gestures had no effect. Findings have implications for understanding the mechanisms underlying the links between gesture and learning, as well as practical implications in instructional settings. (shrink)