4.7 Review

Co-Speech Gestures Influence Neural Activity in Brain Regions Associated With Processing Semantic Information

期刊

HUMAN BRAIN MAPPING
卷 30, 期 11, 页码 3509-3526

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/hbm.20774

关键词

discourse comprehension; fMRI; gestures; semantic processing; inferior frontal gyrus

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [P01HD040605, R01DC003378, F32DC008909]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Everyday communication is accompanied by visual information from several Sources, including co-speech gestures, which provide semantic information listeners use to help disambiguate the speaker's message. Using fMRI, we examined how gestures influence neural activity in brain regions associated with processing semantic information. The BOLD response was recorded while participants listened to stories under three audiovisual conditions and one auditory-only (speech alone) condition. In the first audiovisual condition, the storyteller produced gestures that naturally accompany speech. In the second, the storyteller made semantically unrelated hand movements. In the third, the storyteller kept her hands still. In addition to inferior parietal and posterior superior and middle temporal regions, bilateral posterior superior temporal sulcus and left anterior inferior frontal gyrus responded more strongly to speech when it was further accompanied by gesture, regardless of the semantic relation to speech. However, the right inferior frontal gyrus was sensitive to the semantic import of the hand movements, demonstrating more activity when hand movements were semantically unrelated to the accompanying speech. These findings show that perceiving hand movements during speech modulates the distributed pattern of neural activation involved in both biological motion perception and discourse comprehension, suggesting listeners attempt to find meaning, not only in the words speakers produce, but also in the hand movements that accompany speech. Man Brain Mapp 30:3509-3526, 2009. (C) 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据