Gesture is more effective than spatial language in encoding spatial information

Abstract

The present research investigates whether producing gestures with and without speech facilitates route learning at different levels of route complexity and in learners with different levels of spatial skills. It also examines whether the facilitation effect of gesture is stronger than that of spatial language. Adults studied routes with 10, 13, and 16 steps and reconstructed them with sticks, either without rehearsal or after rehearsal by producing gestures with speech, gestures alone, or speech only. For all levels of route complexity and spatial skills, participants who were encouraged to gesture (with or without speech) during rehearsal had the best recall. Additionally, we found that number of steps rehearsed in gesture, but not that rehearsed in speech, predicted the recall accuracy. Thus, gesture is more effective than spatial language in encoding spatial information, and thereby enhancing spatial recall. These results further corroborate the beneficial nature of gesture in processing spatial information.

Keywords::

• Gesture
• Navigation
• Spatial cognition
• Information encoding
• Spatial language

We also wish to acknowledge the help of our research assistants Ben Ka-Ho Choi, Wing-Lam Amy Chong, Tsz Ching Michelle Ho, and Kit-Yee Ip.

This research has been fully supported by the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China [project number 449813]; and grants from the Chinese University of Hong Kong [project number CUHK4930017], [project number CUHK4058005].

Notes

¹We decided that adjustments were made only if at least three steps following the missing ones were correctly recalled. We used the criterion of at least three steps rather than that of at least one or two steps because it would be overly lenient to make adjustments if participants only recalled one or two steps correctly after the missing steps. Yet, it would be overly strict if we made adjustments only if participants recalled at least four steps following the missing steps. Indeed, some participants might omit the steps near the end of the recall, and thus it was not feasible to set the criterion of at least four steps.

²We also did median splits for the Corsi Block-Tapping test and the Paper-Folding test and ran separate repeated measures ANOVAs using performance of the Corsi Block-Tapping test and that of Paper-Folding test as the indicator of the spatial skill, respectively. We found the same results. In the repeated measures ANOVA in which the performance in the Corsi Block-Tapping test was the between-subjects independent variable, we found significant effects of condition, F(5, 126) = 4.65, p < .001, η² = .16, spatial skill, F(1, 126) = 7.76, p < .006, η² = .06, and complexity, F(2, 246) = 25.73, p < .001, η² = .18. In the repeated measures ANOVA in which the performance in the Paper-Folding test was the between-subject independent variable, we found significant effects of condition, F(5, 126) = 7.14, p < .001, η² = .23, spatial skill, F(1, 126) = 6.66, p < .011, η² = .05, and complexity, F(2, 246) = 40.84, p < .001, η² =. 25. All interactions in both analyses were not significant.