Midlands State University Library
Image from Google Jackets

Division of the articulatory loop according to sensory modality using double dissociation created by Guillaume Gimenes, Valérie Pennequin, Olivier Sorel

By: Contributor(s): Material type: TextTextSeries: ; Volume , number ,France ; Taylor & Francis; 2013Content type:
  • text
Media type:
  • unmediated
Carrier type:
  • volume
Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: According to Wilson and Fox (2007), working memory for gestures has the same characteristics as the phonological loop. The purpose of our research was to determine whether there is a common articulatory loop for verbal and gestural learning. We carried out two double dissociation experiments. The first involved 84 participants who had to reproduce a series of three gestures under three conditions: control, gestural interference (repeated gestures) and verbal interference (repeated “blah blah”). A significant difference in performance was observed; gestural interference resulted in the weakest performance, while there was no difference between the verbal interference condition and the control group. The second experiment, with 30 participants, involved the memorisation of letters and digits; performance was significantly affected by verbal interference but there was no difference between the gestural interference condition and the control group. The consequences of the dissociations are discussed in relation to Baddeley's (2000) model.
Reviews from LibraryThing.com:
Tags from this library: No tags from this library for this title. Log in to add tags.
Star ratings
    Average rating: 0.0 (0 votes)

According to Wilson and Fox (2007), working memory for gestures has the same characteristics as the phonological loop. The purpose of our research was to determine whether there is a common articulatory loop for verbal and gestural learning. We carried out two double dissociation experiments. The first involved 84 participants who had to reproduce a series of three gestures under three conditions: control, gestural interference (repeated gestures) and verbal interference (repeated “blah blah”). A significant difference in performance was observed; gestural interference resulted in the weakest performance, while there was no difference between the verbal interference condition and the control group. The second experiment, with 30 participants, involved the memorisation of letters and digits; performance was significantly affected by verbal interference but there was no difference between the gestural interference condition and the control group. The consequences of the dissociations are discussed in relation to Baddeley's (2000) model.

There are no comments on this title.

to post a comment.