Division of the articulatory loop according to sensory modality using double dissociation

Gimenes, Guillaume; Pennequin, Valérie; Sorel, Olivier

doi:10.1080/20445911.2013.823974

Cited by 9 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Whilst the findings of Gimenes et al (2013) showed that articulatory suppression does not affect working memory for gestures, similar experiments have found that a verbalisation strategy can be used to enhance performance. Frencham, Fox and Maybery (2004) asked their participants to recall hand movements from the KHMT (the Kaufman Hand Movement Test).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…The materials were inspired by Wilson and Fox (2007) and Gimenes et al (2013), and used the same sets of gestures. Participants were shown video sequences comprising a succession of gestures.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We used the same reliable scoring technique as Gimenes et al (2013). One point was given for the gesture starting in the right place, including: 1) the forehead, comprising the area from the top of the head to the nose (with the bottom of the palm); 2) the mouth, with the palm placed between the mouth (finger on the nose) and the neck; 3) the chest, from above the torso (fingers at the beginning of the neck) to the abdomen.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition to these components, studies by Smyth, Pearson and Pendleton (1988) and Gimenes, Pennequin and Sorel (2013) suggest that a dedicated component is responsible for gestures. In five experiments, Smyth et al (1988) asked their participants to learn patterned movements (neither gestures or mimes), words and spatial patterns.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This resulted in a simple dissociation as gestural learning was still damaged by gestural suppression, but not by articulatory suppression. Gimenes et al (2013) further examined the possible dissociation between gestural and verbal STRATEGIES TO RETAIN GESTURES IN WM 5 learning, but their method differed from that employed by Smyth et al Gimenes et al presented sequences of three gestures, and each gesture included a combination of three components (movements, hand shapes, and locations; ibid Wilson & Fox, 2007). Verbal labelling of the gestures was minimised by using short encoding times (1 s) and limited repetitions of each gesture.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

What is the best strategy for retaining gestures in working memory?

Gimenes

Pennequin

Mercer

2015

Memory

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study aimed to determine whether the recall of gestures in working memory could be enhanced by verbal or gestural strategies. We also attempted to examine whether these strategies could help resist verbal or gestural interference. Fifty-four participants were divided into three groups according to the content of the training session. This included a control group, a verbal strategy group (where gestures were associated with labels) and a gestural strategy group (where participants repeated gestures and were told to imagine reproducing the movements). During the experiment, the participants had to reproduce series of gestures under three conditions: "no interference", gestural interference (gestural suppression) and verbal interference (articulatory suppression). The results showed that task performance was enhanced in the verbal strategy group, but there was no significant difference between the gestural strategy and control groups. Moreover, compared to the "no interference" condition, performance decreased in the presence of gestural interference, except within the verbal strategy group. Finally, verbal interference hindered performance in all groups. The discussion focuses on the use of labels to recall gestures and differentiates induced strategies from self-initiated strategies.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%