Gesture-Speech Integration in Typical and Atypical Adolescent Readers.

Ru Yao, Connie Qun Guan, Elaine R Smolen, Brian MacWhinney, Wanjin Meng, Laura M Morett
Author Information
  1. Ru Yao: China National Institute of Education Sciences, Beijing, China.
  2. Connie Qun Guan: School of Foreign Studies, Beijing Language and Culture University, Beijing, China.
  3. Elaine R Smolen: Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY, United States.
  4. Brian MacWhinney: Department of Psychology, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, United States.
  5. Wanjin Meng: Department of Moral, Psychological and Special Education, China National Institute of Education Sciences, Beijing, China.
  6. Laura M Morett: Department of Educational Studies in Psychology, Research Methodology, and Counseling, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL, United States.

Abstract

This study investigated gesture-speech integration (GSI) among adolescents who are deaf or hard of hearing (DHH) and those with typical hearing. Thirty-eight adolescents (19 with hearing loss) performed a Stroop-like task in which they watched 120 short video clips of gestures and actions twice at random. Participants were asked to press one button if the visual content of the speaker's movements was related to a written word and to press another button if it was unrelated to a written word while accuracy rates and response times were recorded. We found stronger GSI effects among DHH participants than hearing participants. The semantic congruency effect was significantly larger in DHH participants than in hearing participants, and results of our experiments indicated a significantly larger gender congruency effect in DHH participants as compared to hearing participants. Results of this study shed light on GSI among DHH individuals and suggest future avenues for research examining the impact of gesture on language processing and communication in this population.

Keywords

References

  1. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1991 Nov;61(5):743-54 [PMID: 1753329]
  2. Trends Cogn Sci. 2006 Jun;10(6):278-85 [PMID: 16713325]
  3. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1998 Aug;46(8):1008-11 [PMID: 9706892]
  4. Nat Neurosci. 2010 Nov;13(11):1421-7 [PMID: 20935644]
  5. J Neurosci. 2001 Nov 15;21(22):8931-42 [PMID: 11698604]
  6. Science. 1980 Jan 11;207(4427):203-5 [PMID: 7350657]
  7. J Neurosci. 2018 Feb 21;38(8):1891-1900 [PMID: 29358361]
  8. Cereb Cortex. 2007 Oct;17(10):2322-33 [PMID: 17159232]
  9. J Cogn Neurosci. 2002 Feb 15;14(2):254-71 [PMID: 11970790]
  10. Arch Intern Med. 2008 Jul 28;168(14):1522-30 [PMID: 18663164]
  11. Front Psychol. 2020 Apr 16;11:544 [PMID: 32373000]
  12. Brain Lang. 1990 Feb;38(2):253-77 [PMID: 1691038]
  13. Ear Hear. 1985 Jul-Aug;6(4):184-90 [PMID: 4043571]
  14. Brain Res. 1987 Mar 10;405(2):268-83 [PMID: 3567605]
  15. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2006 May;132(5):495-500 [PMID: 16702564]
  16. Neuroimage. 2006 Jan 1;29(1):254-66 [PMID: 16109491]
  17. Brain Lang. 2004 Apr;89(1):253-60 [PMID: 15010257]
  18. Hum Brain Mapp. 2014 Mar;35(3):900-17 [PMID: 23238964]
  19. Arch Dis Child. 1996 Aug;75(2):129-32 [PMID: 8869193]
  20. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2017 Jan 1;60(1):212-222 [PMID: 27960196]
  21. Am J Epidemiol. 1998 Nov 1;148(9):879-86 [PMID: 9801018]
  22. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2020 Nov 13;63(11):3571-3585 [PMID: 33090915]
  23. J Cogn Neurosci. 2002 Jul 1;14(5):687-701 [PMID: 12167254]
  24. Trends Cogn Sci. 2006 Nov;10(11):512-8 [PMID: 17015029]
  25. Hum Brain Mapp. 2011 Jun;32(6):982-98 [PMID: 20645312]
  26. Trends Hear. 2014 Oct 13;18: [PMID: 25315375]
  27. Cognition. 2019 Jun;187:178-187 [PMID: 30877849]
  28. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2018 Sep 19;61(9):2179-2195 [PMID: 30193334]
  29. Front Psychol. 2020 Nov 23;11:575032 [PMID: 33329219]
  30. Psychol Sci. 2010 Feb;21(2):260-7 [PMID: 20424055]
  31. J Neurosci. 2000 Sep 1;20(17):RC93 [PMID: 10952732]
  32. Psychol Bull. 1993 Nov;114(3):510-32 [PMID: 8272468]
  33. Brain Lang. 2007 Jun;101(3):278-89 [PMID: 17416411]
  34. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 2005 Fall;10(4):390-401 [PMID: 16000689]
  35. Front Psychol. 2021 Apr 29;12:634074 [PMID: 33995189]
  36. Sao Paulo Med J. 2009 May;127(2):61-5 [PMID: 19597679]
  37. Front Psychol. 2014 Dec 09;5:1467 [PMID: 25538671]
  38. Cortex. 2012 Jul;48(7):857-70 [PMID: 21397223]
  39. J Cogn Neurosci. 2007 Jul;19(7):1175-92 [PMID: 17583993]
  40. Psychol Bull. 2019 Aug;145(8):765-784 [PMID: 31219263]
  41. Front Psychol. 2020 Oct 22;11:575991 [PMID: 33192884]
  42. J Cogn Neurosci. 2010 Apr;22(4):683-94 [PMID: 19413483]
  43. Cognition. 2022 May;222:105014 [PMID: 35033864]
  44. J Cogn Neurosci. 2011 Jul;23(7):1648-63 [PMID: 20350188]
  45. Nat Neurosci. 2001 Dec;4(12):1171-3 [PMID: 11704763]
  46. Psychol Bull. 2011 Mar;137(2):297-315 [PMID: 21355631]

Grants

  1. R01 DC008524/NIDCD NIH HHS

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0hearingparticipantsDHHGSIamongstudyintegrationadolescentsdeafhardpressbuttonwrittenwordcongruencyeffectsignificantlylargergesturelanguageinvestigatedgesture-speechtypicalThirty-eight19lossperformedStroop-liketaskwatched120shortvideoclipsgesturesactionstwicerandomParticipantsaskedonevisualcontentspeaker'smovementsrelatedanotherunrelatedaccuracyratesresponsetimesrecordedfoundstrongereffectssemanticresultsexperimentsindicatedgendercomparedResultsshedlightindividualssuggestfutureavenuesresearchexaminingimpactprocessingcommunicationpopulationGesture-SpeechIntegrationTypicalAtypicalAdolescentReadersautomaticitygesture–speechspokencomprehension

Similar Articles

Cited By

No available data.