Verifying different-modality properties for concepts produces switching costs

Psychological Science

Volumn 14, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 119-124

  Pecher, Diane ^a,d   Zeelenberg, René ^b   Barsalou, Lawrence W ^c  

^a UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^c EMORY UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d ERASMUS UNIVERSITY ROTTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ATTENTION; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONCEPT FORMATION; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISCRIMINATION LEARNING; HUMAN; IMAGINATION; MOTIVATION; PAIRED ASSOCIATE LEARNING; PERCEPTION; PSYCHOPHYSICS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REACTION TIME; READING;

ATTENTION; CONCEPT FORMATION; DISCRIMINATION LEARNING; HUMANS; IMAGINATION; MOTIVATION; PAIRED-ASSOCIATE LEARNING; PERCEPTION; PSYCHOPHYSICS; REACTION TIME; READING;

EID: 0037713007     PISSN: 09567976     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/1467-9280.t01-1-01429     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Barsalou, L.W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 22, 577-660.
2. Barsalou. L.W. (in press). Situated simulation in the human conceptual system. Language and Cognitive Processes.
3. Bentin, S., & Feldman, L.B. (1990). The contribution of morphological and semantic relatedness to repetition priming at short and long lags: Evidence from Hebrew. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 42A, 693-711.
4. Dannenbring. G.L., & Briand, K. (1982). Semantic priming and the word repetition effect in a lexical decision task. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 36, 435-444.
5. Fodor, J.A. (1975). The language of thought. Cambridge: MA: Harvard University Press.
6. Glenberg, A.M. (1997). What memory is for. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 20, 1-55.
7. Joordens, S., & Besner, D. (1992). Priming effects that span an intervening unrelated word: Implications for models of memory representation and retrieval, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 483-491.
8. Klatzky, R.L., Pellegrino, J.W., McCloskey, B.P., & Doherty, S. (1989). Can you squeeze a tomato? The role of motor representations in semantic sensibility judgements. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 56-11.
9. Martin, A. (2001). Functional neuroimaging of semantic memory. In. R. Cabeza & A. Kingstone (Eds.). Handbook of functional neuroimaging of cognition (pp. 153-186). Cambridge. MA: MIT Press.
10. Martin. A., & Chao, L. (2001). Semantic memory and the brain: Structure and process. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 11, 194-201.
11. Martin, A., Ungerleider, L.G., & Haxby, J.V. (2000). Category-specificity and the brain: The sensory-motor model of semantic representations of objects, In M.S. Gazzaniga (Ed.), Thee new cognitive neurosciences (2nd ed., pp. 1023-1036). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
12. Masson, M.E.J. (1995). A distributed memory model of semantic priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 21, 3-23.
13. McNamara, T.P. (1992). Theories of priming: I. Associative distance and lag. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 1173-1190.
14. McRae, K., & Cree, G.S. (in press). Factors underlying category-specific deficits. In E.M.E. Forde & G.W. Humphreys (Eds.). Category specificity in mind and brain. London: Psychology Press.
15. Nelson, D.L., McEvoy, C.L., & Schreiber, T.A. (1999). The University of South Florida word association, rhyme and word fragment norms. Retrieved June 2000 from http://web.usf.edu/FreeAssociation/
16. Pecher, D., Hamann, S.B., Simmons, W.K., Zeelenberg, R., & Barsalou, L.W. (2002). fMRI evidence for modality-specific conceptual processing in six modalities. Unpublished manuscript. Erasmus University, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
17. Pulvermüller, F. (1999). Words in the brain's language. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 253-336.
18. Pylyshyn, Z.W. (1984). Computation and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
19. Raaijmakers, J.G.W., Schrijnemakers, J.M.C., & Gremmen, F. (1999). How to deal with the "language-as-a-fixed-effect fallacy": Common misconceptions and alternative solutions. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 416-426.
20. Simmons, K., & Barsalou, L.W. (in press). The similarity-in-topography principle: Reconciling theories of conceptual deficits. Cognitive Neuropsychology.
21. Solomon, K.O., & Barsalou, L.W. (2001). Representing properties locally. Cognitive Psychology, 43, 129-169.
22. Solomon, K.O., & Barsalou, L.W. (2002). Perceptual simulation in property verification. Manuscript submitted for publication.
23. Spence, C., & Driver, J. (1998). Auditory and audiovisual inhibition of return. Perception & Psychophysics. 60, 125-139.
24. Spence, C., Nicholls, M.E.R., & Driver, J. (2000). The cost of expecting events in the wrong sensory modality. Perception & Psychophysics. 63, 330-336.
25. Spivey, M., Tyler, M., Richardson, D., & Young, E. (2000). Eye movements during comprehension of spoken scene descriptions. Tn L.R. Gleitman & A.K. Joshi (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 487-492). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
26. Stanfield, R.A., & Zwaan, R.A. (2001). The effect of implied orientation derived from verbal context on picture recognition. Psychological Science, 12, 153-156.
27. Wiemer-Hastings, K., Krug, J., & Xu, X. (2001). Imagery, context availability, contextual constraint, and abstractness. In J.D. Moore & K. Stenning (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1134-1139). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
28. Wu, L., & Barsalou, L.W. (2002). Perceptual simulation in property verification. Manuscript submitted for publication.
29. Zwaan, R.A., Stanfield, R.A., & Yaxley, R.H. (2002). Language comprehenders mentally represent the shapes of objects. Psychological Science, 13, 168-171.