Do task-irrelevant direction-associated motion verbs affect action planning? Evidence from a Stroop paradigm

Memory and Cognition

Volumn 40, Issue 7, 2012, Pages 1081-1094

  Dudschig, Carolin ^a   Lachmair, Martin ^a   de la Vega, Irmgard ^a   De Filippis, Monica ^a   Kaup, Barbara ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TÜBINGEN   (Germany)

Author keywords

Embodied cognition; Language comprehension; Lexical processing

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; LANGUAGE; LINGUISTICS; MALE; METHODOLOGY; MOTION; MOTOR ACTIVITY; MOVEMENT (PHYSIOLOGY); NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TEST; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; STROOP TEST;

ADULT; FEMALE; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; MALE; MOTION; MOTOR ACTIVITY; MOVEMENT; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS; PSYCHOLINGUISTICS; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; STROOP TEST; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84866871462     PISSN: 0090502X     EISSN: 15325946     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/s13421-012-0201-9     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Ansorge, U., Kiefer, M., Khalid, S., Grassl, S. I., & Koenig, P. (2010). Testing the theory of embodied cognition with subliminal words. Cognition, 116, 303-320.
2. Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptions of perceptual symbols. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 637-660.
3. Bates, D., & Maechler, M., & Bolker, B. (2011). R Software Package lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0. 999375-4. Retrieved from http://lme4. r-forge. r-project. org/.
4. Bergen, B. K., Lindsay, S., Matlock, T., & Narayanan, S. (2007). Spatial and linguistic aspects of visual imagery in sentence comprehension. Cognitive Science, 31, 733-764.
5. Boulenger, V., Roy, A. C., Paulignan, Y., Deprez, V., Jeannerod, M., & Nazir, T. A. (2006). Cross-talk between language processes and overt motor behavior in the first 200 ms of processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 1607-1615.
6. Bub, D. N., & Masson, M. E. J. (2010). On the nature of hand-action representations evoked during written sentence comprehension. Cognition, 116, 394-408.
7. Bub, D. N., Masson, M. E. J., & Cree, G. S. (2008). Evocation of functional and volumetric gestural knowledge by objects and words. Cognition, 106, 27-58.
8. Buccino, G., Baumgaertner, A., Colle, L., Buechel, C., Rizzolatti, G., & Binkofski, F. (2007). The neural basis for understanding non-intended actions. NeuroImage, 36, 119-127.
9. Cho, Y. S., & Proctor, W. R. (2002). Influences of hand posture and hand position on compatibility effects for up-sown stimuli mapped to left-right responses: Evidence for a hand referent hypothesis. Perception & Psychophysics, 64, 1301-1315.
10. Costantini, M., Ambrosini, E., Scorolli, C., & Borghi, A. M. (2011). When objects are close to me: Affordances in the peripersoal space. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 302-308.
11. Coventry, K. R., Lynott, D., Cangelosi, A., Monrouxe, L., Joyce, D., & Richardson, D. C. (2010). Spatial language, visual attention, and perceptual simulation. Brain & Language, 112, 202-213.
12. De Jong, R., Liang, C., & Lauber, E. (1994). Conditional and unconditional automaticity: A dual process model of effects of spatial stimulus-response correspondence. Journal of Experiment Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 731-750.
13. Desmurget, M., & Grafton, S. (2000). Forward modelling allows feedback control for fast reaching movements. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 423-431.
14. Fox, L. A., Shor, R. E., & Steinman, R. J. (1971). Semantic gradients and interference in naming color, spatial direction, and numerosity. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 91, 59-65.
15. Glenberg, A. M., & Kaschak, M. P. (2002). Grounding language in action. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 558-565.
16. Hauk, O., Johnsrude, I., & Pulvermüller, F. (2004). Somatotopic representation of action words in human motor and premotor cortex. Neuron, 41, 303-307.
17. Kaup, B., Lüdtke, J., & Steiner, I. (in press). Word- vs. sentence-based simulation effects during language comprehension. In B. Stolterfoht & S. Featherston (Eds.), Current work in linguistic evidence: The fourth Tübingen meeting. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: de Gruyter.
18. Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility - A model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 253-270.
19. Lachmair, M., Dudschig, C., De Filippis, M., de la Vega, I., & Kaup, B. (2011). Root versus roof: Automatic activation of location information during word processing. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 1180-1188.
20. Loftus, G. R., & Masson M. E. J. (1994). Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1, 476-490.
21. Lu, C.-H., & Proctor, R. W. (1995). The influence of irrelevant location information on performance: A review of the Simon and spatial Stroop effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2, 174-207.
22. Lu, C.-H., & Proctor, R. W. (2001). Influence of irrelevant information on human performance: Effects of S-R association strength and relative timing. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 51A, 95-136.
23. MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 163-203.
24. Mahon, B. Z., & Caramazza, C. (2008). A critical look at the embodied cognition hypothesis and a new proposal for grounding conceptual content. Journal of Physiology-Paris, 102, 59-70.
25. Meteyard, L., Zokaei, N., Bahrami, B., & Vigliocco, G. (2008). Visual motion interferes with lexical decision on motion words. Current Biology, 18, R732-R733.
26. Pratte, M. S., Rouder, J. N., Morey, R. D., & Feng, C. (2010). Exploring the differences in distributional properties between Stroop and Simon effects using delta plots. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72, 2013-2025.
27. Raposo, A., Moss, H. E., Stamatakis, E. A., & Tyler, L. K. (2009). Modulation of motor and premotor cortices by action, action words and action sentences. Neuropsychologia, 47, 388-396.
28. Ratcliff, R. (1979). Group reaction time distributions and an analysis of distribution statistics. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 446-461.
29. Santana, E., & de Vega, M. (2011). Metaphors are embodied, and so are their literal counterparts. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 1-12.
30. Shor, R. E. (1970). The processing of conceptual information on spatial directions from pictoral and linguistic symbols. Acta Psychologica, 32, 346-365.
31. Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643-662.
32. Taylor, L. J., & Zwaan, R. A. (2008). Motor resonance and linguistic focus. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 896-904.
33. Turner, M. (1994). Design for a theory of meaning. In W. F. Overton & D. S. Palermo (Eds.), The nature and ontogenesis of meaning (pp. 91-107). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
34. Urgesi, C., Moro, V., Candidi, M., & Aglioti, S. M. (2006). Mapping implied body actions in the human motor system. Journal of Neuroscience, 26, 7942-7949.
35. van Dam, W. O., Rueschemeyer, S.-A., Lindemann, O., & Bekkering, H. (2010). Context effects in embodied lexical-semantic processing. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 1-6.
36. Zwaan, R. A., & Madden, C. J. (2005). Embodied sentence comprehension. In D. Pecher & R. A. Zwaan (Eds.), The grounding of cognition: The role of perception and action in memory, language, and thinking. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
37. Zwaan, R. A., & Taylor, L. (2006). Seeing, acting, understanding: Motor resonance in language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 1-11.