Temporal dynamics of activation of thematic and functional knowledge during conceptual processing of manipulable artifacts

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition

Volumn 38, Issue 5, 2012, Pages 1274-1295

  Kalénine, Solène ^a   Mirman, Daniel ^a   Middleton, Erica L ^a   Buxbaum, Laurel J ^a  

^a MOSS REHABILITATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

Context; Eye tracking; Functional knowledge; Manipulable object concepts; Thematic knowledge

Indexed keywords

AGED; ARTICLE; ARTIFACT; ATTENTION; AUDITORY STIMULATION; CHI SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; CONCEPT FORMATION; EYE FIXATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; LINGUISTICS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PERSONALITY; PHOTOSTIMULATION; PHYSIOLOGY; REACTION TIME; SEMANTICS; STATISTICAL MODEL; TIME;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; AGED; ARTIFACTS; ATTENTION; CHI-SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; CONCEPT FORMATION; FEMALE; FIXATION, OCULAR; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, STATISTICAL; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PERSONALITY; PHOTIC STIMULATION; REACTION TIME; SEMANTICS; TIME FACTORS; VOCABULARY;

EID: 84871279639     PISSN: 02787393     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0027626     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Allopenna, P. D., Magnuson, J. S., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1998). Tracking the time course of spoken word recognition using eye movements: Evidence for continuous mapping models. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 419-439. doi:10.1006/jmla.1997.2558
2. Altmann, G. T. (2011). Language can mediate eye movement control within 100 milliseconds, regardless of whether there is anything to move the eyes to. Acta Psychologica, 137, 190-200. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy .2010.09.009
3. Altmann, G. T., & Kamide, Y. (1999). Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition, 73, 247-264. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00059-1
4. Altmann, G. T., & Kamide, Y. (2009). Discourse-mediation of the mapping between language and the visual world: Eye movements and mental representation. Cognition, 111, 55-71. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2008 .12.005
5. Barsalou, L. W. (1991). Deriving categories to achieve goals. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 27, pp. 1-64). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
6. Barsalou, L. W. (2003). Situated simulation in the human conceptual system. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18, 513-562. doi:10.1080/ 01690960344000026
7. Bekkering, H., & Neggers, S. F. (2002). Visual search is modulated by action intentions. Psychological Science, 13, 370-374. doi:10.1111/ j.0956-7976.2002.00466.x
8. Blaye, A., & Bonthoux, F. (2001). Thematic and taxonomic relations in preschoolers: The development of flexibility in categorization choices. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 19, 395-412. doi: 10.1348/026151001166173
9. Bonthoux, F., & Kalénine, S. (2007). Preschoolers' superordinate taxonomic categorization as a function of individual processing of visual vs. contextual/functional information and object domain. Cognition, Brain, & Behavior, 11, 713-731.
10. Borghi, A. M. (2005). Object concepts and action. In D. Pecher & R. Zwaan (Eds.), The grounding of cognition: The role of perception and action in memory, language, thinking (pp. 8-34). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511499968.002
11. Boronat, C. B., Buxbaum, L. J., Coslett, H. B., Tang, K., Saffran, E. M., Kimberg, D. Y., & Detre, J. A. (2005). Distinctions between manipulation and function knowledge of objects: Evidence from functional magnetic resonance imaging. Cognitive Brain Research, 23, 361-373. doi: 10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2004.11.001
12. Botvinick, M. M., Buxbaum, L. J., Bylsma, L. M., & Jax, S. A. (2009). Toward an integrated account of object and action selection: A computational analysis and empirical findings from reaching-to-grasp and tool-use. Neuropsychologia, 47, 671-683. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia .2008.11.024
13. Botvinick, M., & Plaut, D. C. (2004). Doing without schema hierarchies: A recurrent connectionist approach to normal and impaired routine sequential action. Psychological Review, 111, 395-429. doi:10.1037/ 0033-295X.111.2.395
14. Cree, G. S., & McRae, K. (2003). Analyzing the factors underlying the structure and computation of the meaning of chipmunk, cherry, chisel, cheese, and cello (and many other such concrete nouns). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132, 163-201. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.132.2.163
15. Cree, G. S., McRae, K., & McNorgan, C. (1999). An attractor model of lexical conceptual processing: Simulating semantic priming. Cognitive Science, 23, 371-414. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog2303_4
16. Crutch, S. J., & Warrington, E. K. (2010). The differential dependence of abstract and concrete words upon associative and similarity-based information: Complementary semantic interference and facilitation effects. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 27, 46-71. doi:10.1080/02643294.2010.491359
17. Dahan, D., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2005). Looking at the rope when looking for the snake: Conceptually mediated eye movements during spokenword recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 453-459. doi: 10.3758/BF03193787
18. Estes, Z., Golonka, S., & Jones, L. L. (2011). Thematic thinking: The apprehension and consequences of thematic relations. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 54, 249-294. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-385527-5.00008-5
19. Estes, Z., & Jones, L. L. (2009). Integrative priming occurs rapidly and uncontrollably during lexical processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138, 112-130. doi:10.1037/a0014677
20. Farah, M. J., & McClelland, J. L. (1991). A computational model of semantic memory impairment: Modality specificity and emergent category specificity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 120, 339-357. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.120.4.339
21. Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E., & McHugh, P. R. (1975). "Mini-mental state": A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12, 189-198. doi: 10.1016/0022-3956(75)90026-6
22. Garrard, P., Lambon Ralph, M. A., Hodges, J. R., & Patterson, K. (2001). Prototypicality, distinctiveness and intercorrelation: Analyses of the semantic attributes of living and nonliving concepts. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 18, 125-174.
23. Gerlach, C., Law, I., & Paulson, O. B. (2002). When action turns into words: Activation of motor-based knowledge during categorization of manipulable objects. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14, 1230-1239. doi:10.1162/089892902760807221
24. Glenberg, A. M., & Robertson, D. A. (2000). Symbol grounding and meaning: A comparison of high-dimensional and embodied theories of meaning. Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 379-401. doi:10.1006/ jmla.2000.2714
25. Handy, T. C., Grafton, S. T., Shroff, N. M., Ketay, S., & Gazzaniga, M. S. (2003). Graspable objects grab attention when the potential for action is recognized. Nature Neuroscience, 6, 421-427. doi:10.1038/nn1031
26. Hare, M., Jones, M., Thomson, C., Kelly, S., & McRae, K. (2009). Activating event knowledge. Cognition, 111, 151-167. doi:10.1016/ j.cognition.2009.01.009
27. Huettig, F., & Altmann, G. T. (2005). Word meaning and the control of eye fixation: Semantic competitor effects and the visual world paradigm. Cognition, 96, B23-B32. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2004.10.003
28. Huettig, F., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2008). When you name the pizza you look at the coin and the bread: Eye movements reveal semantic activation during word production. Memory & Cognition, 36, 341-360. doi: 10.3758/MC.36.2.341
29. Jones, M., & Love, B. C. (2007). Beyond common features: The role of roles in determining similarity. Cognitive Psychology, 55, 196-231. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2006.09.004
30. Kalénine, S., Peyrin, C., Pichat, C., Segebarth, C., Bonthoux, F., & Baciu, M. (2009). The sensory-motor specificity of taxonomic and thematic conceptual relations: A behavioral and fMRI study. NeuroImage, 44, 1152-1162. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.09.043
31. Kamide, Y., Altmann, G. T. M., & Haywood, S. L. (2003). The timecourse of prediction in incremental sentence processing: Evidence from anticipatory eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 133-156. doi:10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00023-8
32. Kamide, Y., Scheepers, C., & Altmann, G. T. (2003). Integration of syntactic and semantic information in predictive processing: Crosslinguistic evidence from German and English. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 32, 37-55. doi:10.1023/A:1021933015362
33. Kellenbach, M. L., Brett, M., & Patterson, K. (2003). Actions speak louder than functions: The importance of manipulability and action in tool representation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15, 30-46. doi: 10.1162/089892903321107800
34. Kukona, A., Fang, S.-Y., Aicher, K. A., Chen, H., & Magnuson, J. S. (2011). The time course of anticipatory constraint integration. Cognition, 119, 23-42. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2010.12.002
35. Labeye, E., Oker, A., Badard, G., & Versace, R. (2008). Activation and integration of motor components in a short-term priming paradigm. Acta Psychologica, 129, 108-111. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2008.04.010
36. Lee, C. L., Middleton, E., Mirman, D., Kalénine, S., & Buxbaum, L. J. (in press). Incidental and context-responsive activation of structureand function-based action features during object identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance.
37. Lin, E. L., & Murphy, G. L. (2001). Thematic relations in adults' concepts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 3-28. doi:10.1037/ 0096-3445.130.1.3
38. Matsuki, K., Chow, T., Hare, M., Elman, J. L., Scheepers, C., & McRae, K. (2011). Event-based plausibility immediately influences on-line language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 913-934. doi:10.1037/a0022964
39. McRae, K., Hare, M., Elman, J. L., & Ferretti, T. (2005). A basis for generating expectancies for verbs from nouns. Memory & Cognition, 33, 1174-1184. doi:10.3758/BF03193221
40. Mirman, D., Dixon, J. A., & Magnuson, J. S. (2008). Statistical and computational models of the visual world paradigm: Growth curves and individual differences. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 475-494. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.006
41. Mirman, D., & Graziano, K. M. (2011). Individual differences in the strength of taxonomic versus thematic relations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/ a0026451
42. Mirman, D., & Magnuson, J. S. (2009). Dynamics of activation of semantically similar concepts during spoken word recognition. Memory & Cognition, 37, 1026-1039. doi:10.3758/MC.37.7.1026
43. Moss, H. E., Ostrin, R. K., Tyler, L. K., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1995). Accessing different types of lexical semantic information: Evidence from priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 863-883. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.21.4.863
44. Myung, J. Y., Blumstein, S. E., & Sedivy, J. C. (2006). Playing on the typewriter, typing on the piano: Manipulation knowledge of objects. Cognition, 98, 223-243. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2004.11.010
45. Nelson, K. (1983). The derivation of concepts and categories from event representations. In E. K. Scholnick (Ed.), New trends in conceptual representation: Challenges to Piaget's theory? (pp. 129-149). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
46. Nelson, K. (1985). Making sense: The acquisition of shared meaning. New York, NY: Academic Press.
47. O'Connor, C. M., Cree, G. S., & McRae, K. (2009). Conceptual hierarchies in a flat attractor network: Dynamics of learning and computations. Cognitive Science, 33, 665-708. doi:10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01024.x
48. Pavese, A., & Buxbaum, L. (2002). Action matters: The role of action plans and object affordances in selection for action. Visual Cognition, 9, 559-590. doi:10.1080/13506280143000584
49. Riddoch, M. J., Humphreys, G. W., Edwards, S., Baker, T., & Willson, K. (2003). Seeing the action: Neuropsychological evidence for action-based effects on object selection. Nature Neuroscience, 6, 82-89. doi:10.1038/ nn984
50. Ross, B. H., & Murphy, G. L. (1999). Food for thought: Crossclassification and category organization in a complex real-world domain. Cognitive Psychology, 38, 495-553. doi:10.1006/cogp.1998.0712
51. Schwartz, M. F., Kimberg, D. Y., Walker, G. M., Brecher, A., Faseyitan, O., Dell, G. S., Coslett, H. B. (2011). A neuroanatomical dissociation for taxonomic and thematic knowledge in the human brain. PNAS: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 108, 8520-8524. doi:10.1073/pnas.1014935108
52. van Elk, M., van Schie, H. T., & Bekkering, H. (2009). Short-term action intentions overrule long-term semantic knowledge. Cognition, 111, 72-83. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2008.12.002
53. van Elk, M., van Schie, H. T., Neggers, S. F., & Bekkering, H. (2010). Neural and temporal dynamics underlying visual selection for action. Journal of Neurophysiology, 104, 972-983. doi:10.1152/jn.01079.2009
54. Ventura, P., Morais, J., Brito-Mendes, C., & Kolinsky, R. (2005). The mental representation of living and nonliving things: Differential weighting and interactivity of sensorial and non-sensorial features. Memory, 13, 124-147. doi:10.1080/09658210344000639
55. Vigliocco, G., Vinson, D. P., Lewis, W., & Garrett, M. F. (2004). Representing the meanings of object and action words: The featural and unitary semantic space hypothesis. Cognitive Psychology, 48, 422-488. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2003.09.001
56. Vinson, D. P., & Vigliocco, G. (2008). Semantic feature production norms for a large set of objects and events. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 183-190. doi:10.3758/BRM.40.1.183
57. Warrington, E. K., & Shallice, T. (1984). Category specific semantic impairments. Brain, 107, 829-853. doi:10.1093/brain/107.3.829
58. Wisniewski, E. J., & Bassok, M. (1999). What makes a man similar to a tie? Stimulus compatibility with comparison and integration. Cognitive Psychology, 39, 208-238. doi:10.1006/cogp.1999.0723
59. Yee, E., Huffstetler, S., & Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2011). Function follows form: Activation of shape and function features during object identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140, 348-363. doi:10.1037/a0022840
60. Yee, E., Overton, E., & Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2009). Looking for meaning: Eye movements are sensitive to overlapping semantic features, not association. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 869-874. doi: 10.3758/PBR.16.5.869
61. Yee, E., & Sedivy, J. C. (2006). Eye movements to pictures reveal transient semantic activation during spoken word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 1-14. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.32.1.1