Gesturers Tell a Story Creatively; Non-Gesturers Tell it like it Happened
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research has shown that using gestures helps children remember more information. Here, we designed two studies to test whether children who gesture tend to rely on visuospatial cognitive resources more than children who do not gesture. We also test whether children who gesture demonstrate more creativity in their narrative productions. Preschool children watched a cartoon and then were asked to tell back the story of the cartoon. In the first study, some children were asked to tell the story with gestures constrained while others could move their hands if they chose. Children who did not spontaneously gesture told shorter stories than children who gestured. The sequencing of story events was significantly closer to the original among the Non-Gesturers than among children whose gestures were constrained. In the follow-up study, Non-Gesturers again told shorter stories than Gesturers. Moreover, Non-Gesturers’ story length was positively correlated with both verbal and visuospatial short-term memory. Overall, these results suggest that, when retelling narratives, preschoolers who gesture may be relying upon visuospatial cognitive resources to a greater extent and show a tendency to incorporate more creativity into their narratives compared to preschoolers who did not spontaneously gesture.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".