ライフサイエンスコーパス: gesture

1 nt degrees of optionality, existence of beat gestures).

2 s of sign, and speech takes on properties of gesture.

3 in calibrating the borders between sign and gesture.

4 ssumption that gradient aspects of signs are gesture.

5 systems used for understanding nonlinguistic gesture.

6 utual eye contact or by a perceived pointing gesture.

7 ck does not correspond to the intended motor gesture.

8 When speakers talk, they gesture.

9 t the concatenation of actions into a larger gesture.

10 of new technology to study sign language and gesture.

11 lone but should be compared with speech-plus-gesture.

12 s must differentiate between sign/speech and gesture.

13 le, and similar to spoken language co-speech gesture.

14 tion by changing views of what constitutes a gesture.

15 these criteria for distinguishing sign from gesture.

16 SD display distinctive qualities in sign and gesture.

17 riteria by which to distinguish language and gesture.

18 etter calibrate the borders between sign and gesture.

19 ent of a neural matching mechanism for these gestures.

20 wer rates of auditory long-range and tactile gestures.

21 d tactile gestures and lower rates of visual gestures.

22 speech sounds are processed as articulatory gestures.

23 learn and produce complex sequences of vocal gestures.

24 from visual gestures to tactile and auditory gestures.

25 n activity is tightly organized around motor gestures.

26 captive great apes' flexible use of pointing gestures.

27 es is fixed or varies across different vocal gestures.

28 lack of evidence for semantic content in ape gestures.

29 y the examiner, and imitation of meaningless gestures.

30 approach to encode rapid sequences of vocal gestures.

31 ldren began to grammatically structure their gestures.

32 vocalizations and their accompanying facial gestures.

33 ns showing a stronger response to words than gestures.

34 ularly good at copying novel and meaningless gestures.

35 was assessed during the observation of hand gestures.

36 that are implicated with decoding of others' gestures.

37 sion areas to determine the meaning of those gestures.

38 the idea of semantic-level processing of the gestures.

39 similar to the nonlinguistic, non-meaningful gestures.

40 c, and nonlinguistic, non-meaningful made-up gestures.

41 were the most different compared to the ASL gestures.

42 al-level processing of speech sounds) of the gestures.

43 servation of a speaker's articulatory facial gestures.

44 l gestures, e.g., thumb up), and meaningless gestures.

45 d to couple self- and other-generated facial gestures.

46 es between (discrete) signs and (continuous) gestures.

47 the game some subjects exhibited spontaneous gesturing.

48 her (such as invasion of privacy or menacing gestures) (5.3% [CI, 4.4% to 6.4%]), physical (5.2% [CI,

49 nfant macaques (N = 126) imitate lipsmacking gestures (a macaque affiliative expression) performed by

50 formed two tasks while viewing videos of the gestures: a visuo-spatial (identity) discrimination task

51 Results suggest that when gestures accompany speech, the motor system works with l

52 o be able to recognize finger movement, hand gestures, acoustic vibrations, and real-time pulse wave.

53 rstand the neural bases of the processing of gestures along such a continuum.

54 xplained by differences in the processing of gestures along the semantic dimension.

55 onse to meaningful compared with meaningless gestures along the whole left and large portions of the

56 Both produce imagistic gestures along with more categorical signs or words.

57 tion of surgeon's musculo-skeletal model for gesture analysis in laparoscopy, thereby providing a com

58 blind to the tight temporal coordination of gesture and affiliated talk.

59 ed by the lack of clear criteria to define a gesture and by studying gestures separately from other c

60 generalization depends on the type of vocal gesture and its sequential context relative to other ges

61 Gesture and sign form an integrated communication system

62 collection and automatic analysis of natural gesture and sign language are discussed.

63 One key question is whether speech-plus-gesture and sign-with-iconicity really display the same

64 states, which are reflected by mismatches in gesture and speech or sign.

65 rm an integrated communication system, as do gesture and speech.

66 e information channels, such as voice, face, gesture and touch.

67 the way that information can be conveyed via gesture and vocalization is present in infancy.

68 ommunicative functions, and the emergence of gesture and/or sign as potential communicative acts in n

69 critical for rapidly learning to produce new gestures and actions, but how the brain translates obser

70 novel nonlinguistic iconic representations (gestures and animations), we observe successful "one-sho

71 s, supplements, homogeneity) replicated with gestures and animations.

72 was temporally locked to distinctive facial gestures and close inspection of time lags revealed acti

73 when there is a discrepancy between produced gestures and co-occurring speech.

74 tive tracking and classification of discrete gestures and continuous hand motions via detection of sm

75 nds had higher rates of auditory and tactile gestures and lower rates of visual gestures.

76 and its sequential context relative to other gestures and may reflect an advantageous strategy for vo

77 Generally, gestures and multi-modal combinations were more flexibly

78 the outputs they drive, which include motor gestures and sequential cognitive processes.

79 ntent, a fundamental difference versus human gestures and spoken language [1, 5] that suggests these

80 The relationship between these gestures and spoken language remains unclear.

81 e BOLD response in the MTG to video clips of gestures and spoken words in 17 healthy human adults (ma

82 posterior temporal regions in which symbolic gestures and spoken words may be mapped onto common, cor

83 sed dynamic movies consisting of both facial gestures and the accompanying vocalizations.

84 e, adaptive creatures must understand social gestures and the consequences when shared expectations a

85 uggest molecular mechanisms underlying vocal gestures and the emergence of human language.

86 mblems were most similar to those of the ASL gestures and those of the pseudo-ASL were most similar t

87 The integration of facial gestures and vocal signals is an essential process in hu

88 Although all gestures and vocalisations were part of the species-typi

89 ruent or incongruent species-specific facial gestures and vocalizations as well as their unimodal com

90 onset, the premotor cortex integrated gaze, gesture, and emotion displayed by a congener.

91 ceptual cues, including gaze direction, body gesture, and facial expressions.

92 a different distribution of forces within a gesture, and gesture kinematics were faster and larger,

93 forts to consider the linkages between sign, gesture, and language.

94 questions, new criteria for what counts as a gesture, and new data and populations to study.

95 idate the relationships among sign language, gesture, and spoken language.

96 s influenced by context, culture, words, and gestures, and it is one of the most important ways that

97 ia either mutual eye contact and/or pointing gestures, and then jointly attending to the same object

98 In addition, conciliatory gestures appeared to accelerate forgiveness and reduce r

99 ements by helping to select elementary motor gestures appropriate to a given behavioral context.

100 amine how the emotional valence of sound and gesture are integrated when perceiving an emotion.

101 that appear on the surface to be similar to gesture are processed within the left-lateralized fronta

102 s produce when they speak, as these cospeech gestures are a potential source of input to homesigners,

103 tructure and temporal position of individual gestures are adjustable, the number of possible motor tr

104 a neuroconstructivist framework, those early gestures are also far from being considered as imitative

105 oughts and prayers." Critics argue that such gestures are meaningless and may obstruct structural ref

106 gest that norms used in perception of social gestures are pathologically perturbed or missing altoget

107 Physical gestures are prominent features of many species' multimo

108 ports and complements their view of sign and gesture as a unified system.

109 pport for the conceptualization of different gestures as belonging to a continuum and the variance in

110 o object-directed movements or communicative gestures, as non-object directed actions of the upper li

111 ing oxytocin administration, infants' facial gesturing at a human caregiver increased, and infants' s

112 e studies have sparked a renewed interest in gesture-based theories of speech perception.

113 et optimal performance requires that a given gesture be modified appropriately depending on the seque

114 it is difficult to tell where sign stops and gesture begins, we suggest that sign should not be compa

115 the processing of meaningful to meaningless gestures (both relative to rest), the Deaf participants,

116 aces not only sign/speech and co-sign/speech gesture, but also indicative gestures irrespective of mo

117 g proximity bonds had higher rates of visual gestures, but lower rates of auditory long-range and tac

118 ous article, "Imitation of facial and manual gestures by human neonates." Their central conclusion, t

119 sing of emblematic gestures with meaningless gestures by pre-lingually Deaf and hearing participants.

120 These deaf individuals develop their own gestures, called homesigns, to communicate.

121 (b) Gesture can change speakers' thoughts.

122 Gesture can play a role in communication and thought at

123 Encouraging speakers to gesture can thus provide another route for teachers, cli

124 he left hemisphere revealed that meaningless gestures can be imitated by succinctly representing only

125 linguistic (words or signs) with imagistic (gestures) components.

126 Gestures consisted of videos of an actress performing ob

127 , including elastic metamaterials with human gesture-controlled bandgap behaviors and soft robotic fi

128 to viewed tools, imitation of tool-specific gestures demonstrated by the examiner, and imitation of

129 s, suggesting that the brain uses a complex, gesture-dependent control scheme to regulate vocal outpu

130 Here we focus on homesign, gestures developed by deaf individuals who cannot acquir

131 In contrast, cospeech gestures display semantic information relevant to the in

132 Great apes frequently produce gestures during social interactions to communicate in fl

133 or differences between co-speech and co-sign gesture (e.g., different degrees of optionality, existen

134 tionship partner, we found that conciliatory gestures (e.g., apologies, offers of compensation) were

135 e.g., playing guitar), emblems (conventional gestures, e.g., thumb up), and meaningless gestures.

136 mbedding primes within a person's speech and gestures effectively influenced people's decision making

137 pe-sniff as if it were an ostensive pointing gesture enables them to react to the presence and locati

138 e results strongly suggest that conciliatory gestures facilitate forgiveness and reduce anger by modi

139 sture may resolve one important objection to gesture-first theories of language evolution.

140 ilable adult, convey ignorance via nonverbal gestures (flips/shrugs), and increasingly produce verbal

141 species, but evidence for spontaneous use of gesture for direction is limited [1].

142 pecies is not reported to use trunk- or limb-gesture for showing directions [4].

143 lity is predominantly in the use of multiple gestures for a specific meaning.

144 ensors to record the movement kinematics and gesture forces made by 37 children 3-6 years old with au

145 c communication (including both language and gesture) from those specifically engaged by linguistical

146 Wild chimpanzees have a large repertoire of gestures, from visual gestures to tactile and auditory g

147 nonlinguistic symbolic communicative system-gesture-further allows us to investigate where the bound

148 r-corrective learning on pitch-shifted vocal gestures generalized to the same gestures produced in ot

149 dence that newborn babies can imitate facial gestures, hand movements or vocalisations.

150 ld study [1, 2], and natural use of specific gestures has been analyzed [3-5].

151 Outside humans, referential gestures have only been attributed to great apes and, mo

152 Individual gestures have specific meanings, independently of signal

153 Thus, differences in early gesture help to explain the disparities in vocabulary th

154 ged by the presence of abstract diagrammatic gestures, here points and lines, that represent point-li

155 .24-7.08; P = .01), any suicidal ideation or gesture (HR, 2.44; 95% CI, 1.28-4.66; P = .007), and poo

156 eaning with symbols whether these are words, gestures, images, sounds, or objects.

157 Facial gesture imitation in the first week of life predicted ga

158 well as abnormal and delayed acquisition of gestures important for socialization and communication.

159 previously undescribed human-like beckoning gesture in bonobos that has potentially both deictic and

160 t evidence shows that one such communicative gesture in macaque monkeys, lip-smacking, has motor para

161 tween emoticons in textual communication and gesture in signed language with respect to the interdepe

162 s in textual communication resembles that of gesture in speech.

163 nd acting can help us understand the role of gesture in spoken/sign language.

164 l cortex to their corresponding articulatory gestures in motor cortex.

165 tor skills depend on the reuse of individual gestures in multiple sequential contexts (e.g., a single

166 Panzee also elaborates her gestures in relation to the experimenter's pointing, whi

167 , as they were just as likely to produce the gestures in response to control models as they were to m

168 forward' model, representing the sequence of gestures in song to make predictions on expected behavio

169 cialized to process and integrate speech and gestures in the human brain.

170 (G-M&B) argue that, for sign language users, gesture - in contrast to linguistic sign - is iconic, hi

171 dynamics, described as trajectories (motor 'gestures') in a space of syringeal pressure and tension.

172 In humans, referential gestures intentionally draw the attention of a partner t

173 gest that the imitation and matching of hand gestures involve the left inferior parietal lobe (IPL).

174 co-sign/speech gesture, but also indicative gestures irrespective of modality, and locations along w

175 se that the distinction between language and gesture is a categorization problem.

176 distinguishing between sign (or speech) and gesture is essential to predict certain types of learnin

177 alizing from those findings, we propose that gesture is likely characterized by a nuanced interdepend

178 The claim that gesture is primarily imagistic, analog, and holistic is

179 whether newborns' capacity to imitate facial gestures is a valid predictive marker for the emergence

180 nguage comprehension accompanied by cospeech gestures is associated with tuning of and strong functio

181 sis that maternal mirroring of infant facial gestures is central to the development of a neural match

182 Research into nonhuman primates' gestures is often limited by the lack of clear criteria

183 tigated how information related to words and gestures is organized along the MTG.

184 e attributes proposed to infer a referential gesture: it is directed towards an object, mechanically

185 We conclude that signers gesture just as speakers do.

186 distribution of forces within a gesture, and gesture kinematics were faster and larger, with more dis

187 (DHA) was associated with improved CDI total gestures (language development) but was significantly ad

188 sponsor the experiment similarly endowed the gesturing logo of the company with the capacity to bias

189 affiliative behaviors (d = 0.64), including gesturing, looking, and proximity to familiar and unfami

190 s to investigate the contribution that these gestures make to how we communicate and think.

191 Before and after tDCS, subjects performed a gesture matching task and a person discrimination task f

192 kissing prevalence in remote societies, this gesture may be important in the maintenance of long-term

193 ticle's emphasis on distinguishing sign from gesture may resolve one important objection to gesture-f

194 These results suggest that visual gestures may be an efficient way to communicate with a s

195 tion partners, but that tactile and auditory gestures may be more effective at communicating with lar

196 e to vocalizations with corresponding facial gestures may change the way in which we view the process

197 ing to Keven & Akins (K&A), infant orofacial gestures may not reflect imitative responses.

198 res, to their spoken glosses (expressing the gestures' meaning in English), and to visually and acous

199 Moreover, when novel strings of articulatory gestures must be produced in response to nonword stimuli

200 nt a case study of a paradigmatic orofacial "gesture," namely tongue protrusion and retraction (TP/R)

201 tion of biomechanical parameters of surgical gesture not only in kinematic terms but also includes an

202 at "sign should be compared with speech-plus-gesture, not speech alone" (sect.

203 Manual gestures occur on a continuum from co-speech gesticulati

204 control the order in which individual motor gestures of a learned behavior are generated, and the sp

205 How does sign language compare with gesture, on the one hand, and spoken language on the oth

206 information from interlocutors via nonverbal gestures or verbal questions and display a heightened te

207 that sign languages of deaf people are "just gestures," or that sign languages are "just like spoken

208 osterior regions responding more strongly to gestures (pantomimes and emblems) than words and anterio

209 with social deficit severity, imitation, and gesture performance scores.

210 are involved in tool-related and pantomimed gesture performance, but the role of these regions in sp

211 havioral mimicry--the automatic imitation of gestures, postures, mannerisms, and other motor movement

212 Gesture processing deficits constitute a key symptom of

213 neurorehabilitation of apraxic patients with gesture processing deficits.

214 e investigate the effect of parietal tDCS on gesture processing in healthy human subjects.

215 confirm the pivotal role of the left IPL in gesture processing.

216 hat lip-smacking, a distinct multimodal oral gesture produced during grooming, coordinated this activ

217 ed that adaptive error correction of a vocal gesture produced in one sequence would generalize to the

218 in one sequence would generalize to the same gesture produced in other sequences.

219 ifted vocal gestures generalized to the same gestures produced in other sequential contexts.

220 neural substrates of three types of actions: gestures produced in response to viewed tools, imitation

221 ifted syllables, with greater adaptation for gestures produced near to the pitch-shifted syllable.

222 (c) Gesture provides building blocks that can be used to con

223 ications ranging from autonomous vehicles to gesture recognition and virtual reality.

224 pe recognition system (reading by eye) and a gesture recognition system (reading by hand), are simila

225 emonstrated that performance in the semantic gesture recognition task was predicted by per cent damag

226 posterior temporal lobe, whereas the spatial gesture recognition task was predicted by per cent damag

227 ysis suggested that the semantic and spatial gesture recognition tasks were associated with lesioned

228 Pantomime and gesture recognition tasks were more sensitive in differe

229 ements, a relatively circumscribed aspect of gesture recognition.

230 (a) Gesture reflects speakers' thoughts, often their unspoke

231 his prevents furthering our understanding of gesture-related learning.

232 participants while processing both types of gestures relative to rest.

233 during the observation of a transitive hand gesture (relative to observation of a static hand) (p <

234 We explore, in turn, gesture's contribution to how language is produced and u

235 criteria to define a gesture and by studying gestures separately from other communicative means.

236 Understanding the relationship between gesture, sign, and speech offers a valuable tool for inv

237 erception to process communicative, symbolic gestures, signers instead engage parts of the language-p

238 disorder, ASD - may further illuminate sign/gesture similarities and differences and lead to a deepe

239 stica) to create sensory errors during vocal gestures (song syllables) produced in particular sequenc

240 We find that the gestures speakers produce when they talk are integral to

241 target article as it stresses an integrated gesture-speech system that can nevertheless consist of c

242 Findings about great ape gestures spurred interest in a potential common ancestra

243 standing for several stops, or made an overt gesture such as waving his hand toward the seat?

244 Symbolic gestures, such as pantomimes that signify actions (e.g.,

245 ction of single muscles differs across vocal gestures, suggesting that the brain uses a complex, gest

246 ttata), produced as rapid sequences of vocal gestures (syllables), are encoded by the cortical premot

247 us to understand the conditions under which gesture takes on properties of sign, and speech takes on

248 ance on the kinematic component of all three gesture tasks was significantly associated with lesions

249 sture component for both of the tool-related gesture tasks.

250 st 50 years, but also at how the spontaneous gestures that accompany speech have been studied.

251 ems are meaningful, culturally-specific hand gestures that are analogous to words.

252 We contrast homesign with (a) gestures that hearing individuals produce when they spea

253 One natural gesture, the 'periscope-sniff' presumed to be used to en

254 heir social properties, their relations with gestures, their lateralization, and their neurofunctiona

255 s that could not see the first gesturer only gestured themselves if immediately adjacent to the first

256 Encouraging gesture thus has the potential to change how students, p

257 According to one authoritative view, ape gestures thus do not have any specific referential, icon

258 ldren from high-SES families frequently used gesture to communicate at 14 months, a relation that was

259 m simple requests associated with just a few gestures to broader social negotiation associated with a

260 We show that homesigners use gestures to communicate about number.

261 led compelling evidence that chimpanzees use gestures to communicate in a flexible, goal-oriented, an

262 ined chimpanzees effectively use intentional gestures to coordinate with an experimentally naive huma

263 he question of what chimpanzees intend their gestures to mean; surprisingly, the matter of what the i

264 a large repertoire of gestures, from visual gestures to tactile and auditory gestures.

265 ns are particularly necessary for pantomimed gestures to the sight of tools, and both capacities info

266 may lie at the boundary between language and gesture); to determine whether we could dissociate the b

267 Responses to symbolic gestures, to their spoken glosses (expressing the gestur

268 lliseconds of the extreme time points of the gesture trajectories.

269 Thus, two of the three gesture types were tool-related, and two of the three we

270 negotiation associated with a wider range of gesture types.

271 n caregiver-reported measures of MCDI infant gesture use (3.22, -0.60 to 7.04) and VABS social behavi

272 ths, a relation that was explained by parent gesture use (with speech controlled).

273 ies at 54 months was explained by children's gesture use at 14 months.

274 Thus, referential gesture use is not restricted to large-brained vertebrat

275 "Gesture," used in the target article, is shown to be vag

276 the function of single muscles varies across gestures using three complementary approaches.

277 ng hand-written digits and through-wall body gestures, using a single physical hardware imager, repro

278 We studied four types of gestures, varying along linguistic and semantic dimensio

279 Chimpanzees' use of gesture was described in the first detailed field study

280 This technical gesture was performed to enhance color properties, and i

281 of a salient visual boundary at the end of a gesture was sufficient to elicit telic interpretations,

282 e was varied and when the ostensive pointing gesture was visually subtle, suggesting that they unders

283 Matching of hand gestures was specifically facilitated by anodal tDCS app

284 The frequency of gesturing was significantly higher in these test trials

285 le) to blur the distinction between sign and gesture, we argue that distinguishing between sign (or s

286 ff was apparently caused by seeing the first gesture, we found its orientation significantly matched

287 er was only true when their partner's bodily gestures were also available and not when only facial mo

288 To address the question whether these gestures were produced to sustain coordination, we intro

289 Gestures were scored separately for postural (hand/arm p

290 tterns for the nonlinguistic, non-meaningful gestures were the most different compared to the ASL ges

291 rectional cues (gaze direction with pointing gesture) were combined at approximately 190 ms in the pa

292 Sherman) increase the rate of non-indicative gestures when the experimenter approaches the location o

293 n the simulation of contralateral hand-based gestures, when viewing smoking versus control scenes.

294 the fundamental frequency of different vocal gestures, whereas a context-dependent scheme would requi

295 n visual and motor representations of facial gestures, which increases infant neural sensitivity to p

296 , we contrasted the processing of emblematic gestures with meaningless gestures by pre-lingually Deaf

297 he ability to evaluate and modify individual gestures within a complex motor sequence.

298 textile-based arm sleeve that can recognize gestures without encumbering the hand.

299 d as nothing more than a system of pictorial gestures without linguistic structure.

300 ow & Brentari (G-M&B) that sign, speech, and gesture work together to create a single proposition, il