Co-speech gestures can interfere with learning foreign language words*
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Co-speech gestures can help the learning, processing, and memory of words and concepts, particularly motoric and spatial concepts such as verbs. The purpose of the present studies was to test whether co-speech gestures support the learning of words through gist traces of movement. We asked English monolinguals to learn 40 Cantonese words (20 verbs and 20 nouns). In two studies, we found support for the gist traces of congruent gestures being movement: participants who saw congruent gestures while hearing Cantonese words thought they had seen more verbs than participants in any other condition. However, gist traces were unrelated to the accurate recall of either nouns or verbs. In both studies, learning Cantonese words accompanied by congruent gestures tended to interfere with the learning of nouns (but not verbs). In Study 2, we ruled out the possibility that this interference was due either to gestures conveying representational information in another medium or to distraction from moving hands. We argue that gestures can interfere with learning foreign language words when they represent the referents (e.g., show shape or size) because learners must interpret the hands as something other than hands.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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 it