The Role of Non-Representational Hand Gestures in Creative Thinking

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper examines two types of non-representational gestures, beats and pam-revealing gestures, and tries to assess what is their role in creative thinking, finally finding out that, unlike representational gestures, these non-representational ones do not facilitate and might even hurt creativity.

The goal of the study is amendable, even though the results are not easy to interpret.

Participants were submitted tests of divergent and convergent thinking and of mental imagery, while either encouraging or not encouraging them to make gestures, and their gestures were accurately analysed, mainly focusing on beats and palm-revealing ones, and seeing their relationships with all dimensions of creativity.

 

A first minor problem of the paper is that the division into sections is not always helpful for the reader’s comprehension: for instance, Section 1.1., Gestures’ Role in Cognition,  is not, strictly speaking, a part of the introduction but rather of the “related work”, so it should be distinguished from Sect. 1, becoming Section 2 (with the same title). As a consequence, Sections 1.2., 1.3, and 1.4, should be renamed as 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3, respectively. And finally, Sect. 1.5, “The present study”, could become Section 2.4.

“Experiment 1” could be Section 3., with subsections 3.1. “Method” and 3.2 “Materials”, 3.3, “Procedure and Study design” (together), and 3.4, “Coding and scoring procedures”, which might include “Gesture coding”. And finally, 3.4., “Results” (with all its numbered subsections), and 3.5., “Discussion”. The same for Experiment 2, which could become Section 4.

 

A more general conceptual problem, that is not even mentioned in the paper, and may puzzle the reader, is the reciprocal role of non-representational gestures with respect to creative cognitive processes. Which is the cause and which is the effect among the two? Is a beat gesture a movement that in some way “helps”, “favours” a creative cognitive process? Or else, is the gesture a bare cue to the fact that the gesturer is presently reasoning, trying to find divergent or convergent solutions, generating images? From what the Authors say at p.15, line 564, they seem to credit the former hypothesis, as they mention “convergent thinking as the dependent variable” (line 581), while at 582 they say they  “included beat frequency during RAT and mental imagery skills and their interaction as predictors”. And, can a predictor be seen as a “cause”?

This relationship between gestures and creative processes should be made clearer from the outset of the paper.  

 

One more issue is one concerning “palm-revealing” gestures. In this category, the Authors explicitly include only the “palm-up epistemic” gestures (p.2, line 86), attributing them only a semantic content of uncertainty and lack of knowledge. I am not sure this is always the case: for example, the “palm-up-open-hand” described by Müller (1998) – not directly quoted in the References – conveys clear evidence and obviousness, and therefore a meaning of high certainty. To ascertain that the “palm-revealing” gestures referred to in this paper are only of the uncertainty – and never of the certainty – type, it would be useful for the Authors to provide some frames from the videorecordings of the experiments, exemplifying the types of gestures examined and possibly their analysis.

More in general, adding some examples cut from the ELAN coding of the videos would be helpful for the clarity of the paper.

Author Response

Comment 1:
The paper examines two types of non-representational gestures, beats and palm-revealing gestures, and tries to assess what is their role in creative thinking, finally finding out that, unlike representational gestures, these non-representational ones do not facilitate and might even hurt creativity.

The goal of the study is amendable, even though the results are not easy to interpret.

Participants were submitted tests of divergent and convergent thinking and of mental imagery, while either encouraging or not encouraging them to make gestures, and their gestures were accurately analysed, mainly focusing on beats and palm-revealing ones, and seeing their relationships with all dimensions of creativity.

Response 1:

We thank the reviewer for dedicating their time to carefully reading the manuscript and pointing out the amenability of the results and their interpretations. We have addressed all the concerns below and believe that the revisions have improved the clarity and readability of the manuscript.

 

Comment 2:

A first minor problem of the paper is that the division into sections is not always helpful for the reader’s comprehension: for instance, Section 1.1., Gestures’ Role in Cognition,  is not, strictly speaking, a part of the introduction but rather of the “related work”, so it should be distinguished from Sect. 1, becoming Section 2 (with the same title). As a consequence, Sections 1.2., 1.3, and 1.4, should be renamed as 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3, respectively. And finally, Sect. 1.5, “The present study”, could become Section 2.4.

“Experiment 1” could be Section 3., with subsections 3.1. “Method” and 3.2 “Materials”, 3.3, “Procedure and Study design” (together), and 3.4, “Coding and scoring procedures”, which might include “Gesture coding”. And finally, 3.4., “Results” (with all its numbered subsections), and 3.5., “Discussion”. The same for Experiment 2, which could become Section 4.

 Response 2:

We thank the reviewer for this helpful suggestion. We have revised the section numbering and structure to improve readability and logical flow. Specifically:

• Section 1.1 (“Gestures’ Role in Cognition”) has been renumbered as Section 2.
• Sections 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4 have been renumbered as Sections 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3, respectively.
• Section 1.5 (“The Present Study”) is now Section 2.4.
• “Experiment 1” is now Section 3, with subsections 3.1 (“Method”), 3.1.1. (“Participants”), 3.1.2. (“Materials”), 3.1.3. (“Procedure and Study Design”), 3.2. (“Results”), and 3.3. (“Discussion”).
• “Experiment 2” is now Section 4 with a similar internal structure.
• The “General Discussion” is Section 5.

 

Comment 3:

A more general conceptual problem, that is not even mentioned in the paper, and may puzzle the reader, is the reciprocal role of non-representational gestures with respect to creative cognitive processes. Which is the cause and which is the effect among the two? Is a beat gesture a movement that in some way “helps”, “favours” a creative cognitive process? Or else, is the gesture a bare cue to the fact that the gesturer is presently reasoning, trying to find divergent or convergent solutions, generating images? From what the Authors say at p.15, line 564, they seem to credit the former hypothesis, as they mention “convergent thinking as the dependent variable” (line 581), while at 582 they say they  “included beat frequency during RAT and mental imagery skills and their interaction as predictors”. And, can a predictor be seen as a “cause”?

This relationship between gestures and creative processes should be made clearer from the outset of the paper.

Response 3:

We agree that clarifying the causal vs. correlational nature of the relationship between non-representational gestures and creative processes is important for reader comprehension.

To address that, we have added a paragraph to the introduction section 2.1. (lines 157-169, p. 4), commenting on that relationship:
“An important theoretical question, which the current literature has not yet fully elucidated, concerns the directionality of the gesture-cognition relationship. On one hand, beat and palm-revealing gestures might shape the underlying thought processes. For example, beat gestures can scaffold attention (e.g., Dimitrova et al., 2016; Ongchoco & Scholl, 2021), or palm-revealing gestures can offload cognitive load. Alternatively, gestures might be indicators of the speaker being engaged in a thought process and, similar to disfluencies, gestures might be used to signal to the listener that the speaker is thinking and will soon produce a message/answer (Clark & Tree, 2002; Yılmaz et al., 2025). These perspectives are not mutually exclusive, and the same gesture may serve both roles at the same time. For example, a beat gesture might be used to maintain the flow of the conversation and engage the listener’s attention while helping the speaker focus their attention on the task. In other words, gestures can both reflect and alter thinking (Goldin-Meadow & Beilock, 2010), and a directional cause-and-effect relationship might be difficult to infer.”

Second, we believe that in section 5.3. Theoretical Implications and Future Directions we thoroughly explain the relationship between gestures and creativity and the implications of the findings, and we have now slightly revised it to provide a clearer justification (see lines 818-836, p. 23).
“As we did not directly manipulate gestures (e.g., by instructing participants to use beat or palm-revealing gestures specifically) but encouraged overall use of hands when speaking and thinking, it is difficult to induce a cause-and-effect relationship. Future research could study the temporal alignment of speech and gestures. For example, if creative thinking started deteriorating (for instance, ideas became less original or the RAT solution rates dropped) after participants started using non-representational gestures, then we might be able to attribute diminished creativity to the use of non-representational gestures. Unlike representational gestures, non-representational gestures might act as metacognitive cues. Recently, a framework of creative metacognition (CMC) has been proposed by Lebuda and Benedek (2023) and empirically tested (Lebuda & Benedek, 2024). This framework suggests that metacognitive knowledge, monitoring, and control in creative performance could enhance creative cognition. On the other hand, having the metacognitive knowledge of not-knowing, expressed by palm-revealing gestures, might diminish the speaker’s confidence and have a detrimental effect on idea generation. Future research could specifically manipulate non-representational gesture use to test if they might be related to creative metacognition and whether they could facilitate or impair it. Spontaneous gestures and encouraging gestures without explicitly specifying the type of gestures to be used might be insufficient to infer a causal effect of gestures on creativity.”

Finally, our use of “predictor” in statistical models refers to a variable’s role in explaining variance in performance, without implying causality. Even though our design is experimental (there is a gesture manipulation), the relationships between the variables are not purely causal (with gesture encouragement but no direct manipulation of gesture type). Hence, we interpret observed associations cautiously, which is reflected in the General Discussion. We also checked and avoided using causal interpretations throughout the manuscript.

 

Comment 4:

One more issue is one concerning “palm-revealing” gestures. In this category, the Authors explicitly include only the “palm-up epistemic” gestures (p.2, line 86), attributing them only a semantic content of uncertainty and lack of knowledge. I am not sure this is always the case: for example, the “palm-up-open-hand” described by Müller (1998) – not directly quoted in the References – conveys clear evidence and obviousness, and therefore a meaning of high certainty. To ascertain that the “palm-revealing” gestures referred to in this paper are only of the uncertainty – and never of the certainty – type, it would be useful for the Authors to provide some frames from the videorecordings of the experiments, exemplifying the types of gestures examined and possibly their analysis.

Response 4:

Regarding the reference to Müller (1998), did the reviewer maybe mean Müller (2004)? We have added the reference in the Reference section (see lines 961-962, p.25) and cited them alongside Müller (2014).

We had denoted the obviousness function of palm-revealing gestures by saying “the speaker has nothing else to say” in line 88, p. 2. However, we agree that this might not be very clear, and a more explicit classification might be necessary. Therefore, to explicitly clarify that function of palm-revealing gestures in the current study, we added additional explanations (see lines 88-92): “Moreover, Müller (2004) distinguishes another function of PUOH gestures – expressing obviousness, e.g., when the speaker is saying “How could it be otherwise?” or “What else could one say?”. Here, we will focus on palm-up epistemic gestures that are used to express absence of knowledge, uncertainty, and obviousness, and will use the name “palm-revealing” gestures for simplicity.”

 

Comment 5:

More in general, adding some examples cut from the ELAN coding of the videos would be helpful for the clarity of the paper.

Response 5:

We agree and have included both examples of beat and palm-revealing gestures from the gesture analysis in ELAN in Figure 5, pp. 16-17, showing how gestures were annotated and categorized.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article represents a valuable contribution to the study of the functions of non-representational gestures in the context of creative thinking. The proposal that such gestures may serve as metacognitive cues is particularly compelling. The work is original, well-structured, and clearly presented. I recommend acceptance pending minor revisions. Specific comments and suggestions are provided in the attached document. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment 1:

This article represents a valuable contribution to the study of the functions of non-representational gestures in the context of creative thinking. The proposal that such gestures may serve as metacognitive cues is particularly compelling. The work is original, well-structured, and clearly presented. I recommend acceptance pending minor revisions. Specific comments and suggestions are provided in the attached document. 

Response 1:

We sincerely thank the reviewer for their positive evaluation of our work and for recognizing the value of our manuscript. We addressed their specific comments as listed below.

Comment 2:

p.4, line 155-136 - “whether non-representational gestures share a similar origin to representational ones, i.e., whether they also have a similar function for higher-order cognition.” was highlighted. “Does the fact that gestures have a similar function mean that they share the same origin?” was written in the comments.

Response 2:

We appreciate the reviewer’s comment and agree that it would not; therefore, we revised the sentence as follows (see p. 4, lines 170-173):

“Based on previous theories and findings regarding non-representational gestures, in this paper, we ask whether non-representational gestures have a similar function for higher-order cognition, such as creative thinking, in a way that representational gestures do.”

 

Comment 3:

p.8, Table 1 – “age” was mentioned in the table’s caption but not included in the table.

Response 3:

We removed age from the caption and added mental imagery scores instead, which were present in the table (see p. 8, lines 353-355).

 

Comment 4:

p.13, line 496 – “he” was highlighted, “the?” was written as a comment

Response 4:

The typo of “he” was replaced with “the” (see p. 14, line 511)

 

Comment 5:

p.14, line 526 – “four” was highlighted, “six categories?” was written as a comment

Response 5:

We replaced “four” with “six categories” and deleted “as well as” after the word “beat” (see p. 15, lines 541-542).

 

Comment 6:

p.15, line 571 – “To test whether the failure to replicate this finding in Experiment 2, we” - This sentence does not make sense.

Response 6:

We have accordingly added “was due to insufficient statistical power” to the sentence (see p. 17, lines 599-600).

 

Comment 7:

p.16, line 608 – “ Thinking” was highlighted, “there is extra space” was written as a comment

Response 7:

The extra space between “Convergent” and “Thinking” was deleted (see p. 18, line 635), and the typo of “gestures” was corrected (see p. 19, line 641).

 

Comment 8:

p.18, line 662 – “smaller N400 components” was highlighted – Perhaps it would be appropriate to add some basic information about the meaning of the N400 components and their relationship to semantic processing.

Response 8:

We agree with the reviewer and we have added a clarification (see p. 20, lines 689-693): “For example, Wang and Chu (2013) showed that beat gestures elicited smaller N400 components. In general, N400 amplitude is smaller when it is easier to integrate the semantic meaning of a word into a context. The authors also attributed this finding to beat gestures’ role in attracting attention to focus words and emphasizing them.”

 

Comment 9:

p.18, line 673 – “gra.h paper.” was highlighted.

Response 9:

The typo of “graph paper” was corrected (see p. 20, line 703).

 

Comment 10:

p.20, lines 749-750 – “to signal difficulty or uncertainty with the task” was highlighted, “redundant” was written in the comments

Response 10:

We deleted the redundant phrase “that signal uncertainty or difficulty with the task” and rephrased the sentence to read as follows (see p. 22, lines 779-783):

“These findings suggest that when individuals are prompted to gesture while trying to solve a problem, palm-revealing gestures may act as bottom-up metacognitive cues that signal uncertainty or difficulty with the task (see Koriat et al., 2006; Yılmaz et al., 2025), which results in further uncertainty and a feeling-of-not-knowing.”