Grasping the invisible: Semantic processing of abstract words

Psychonomic Bulletin and Review

Volumn 20, Issue 6, 2013, Pages 1312-1318

  Zdrazilova, Lenka ^a   Pexman, Penny M ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Semantic memory; Visual word recognition; Word meaning

Indexed keywords

AROUSAL; ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; EMOTION; HUMAN; PATTERN RECOGNITION; REACTION TIME; READING; SEMANTICS;

AROUSAL; ASSOCIATION; EMOTIONS; HUMANS; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; REACTION TIME; READING; SEMANTICS;

EID: 84889607674     PISSN: 10699384     EISSN: 15315320     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/s13423-013-0452-x     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Adelman, J. S., & Estes, Z. (2013). Emotion and memory: A recognition advantage for positive and negative words independent of arousal. Manuscript under review.
2. Andrews, M., Vigliocco, G., & Vinson, D. (2009). Integrating experiential and distributional data to learn semantic representations. Psychological Review, 116, 463-498. doi: 10. 1037/a0016261.
3. Balota, D. A., Cortese, M. J., Sergent-Marshall, S. D., Spieler, D. H., & Yap, M. J. (2004). Visual word recognition of single-syllable words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 283-316. doi: 10. 1037/0096-3445. 133. 2. 283.
4. Balota, D. A., Ferraro, F. R., & Connor, L. T. (1991). On the early influence of meaning in word recognition: A review of the literature. In P. J. Schwanenflugel (Ed.), The psychology of word meanings (pp. 187-222). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
5. Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Cortese, M. J., Hutchison, K. A., Kessler, B., Loftis, B. Treiman, R. (2007). The English Lexicon Project. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 445-459. doi: 10. 3758/BF03193014.
6. Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577-609, disc. 609-660. doi: 10. 1017/S0140525X99002149.
7. Barsalou, L. W., Santos, A., Simmons, W. K., & Wilson, C. D. (2008). Language and simulation in conceptual processing. In M. De Vega, A. M. Glenberg, & A. C. Graesser (Eds), Symbols and embodiment: Debates on meaning and cognition (pp. 245-283). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
8. Barsalou, L. W., & Wiemer-Hastings, K. (2005). Situating abstract concepts. In D. Pecher & R. Zwaan (Eds.), Grounding cognition: The role of perception and action in memory, language, and thought (pp. 129-163). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
9. Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (1999). Affective norms for English words (ANEW): Stimuli, instruction manual and affective ratings (Technical Report No. C-1). Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, NIMH Center for Research in Psychophysiology.
10. Brysbaert, M., & New, B. (2009). Moving beyond Kučera & Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 977-990. doi: 10. 3758/BRM. 41. 4. 977.
11. Buchanan, L., Westbury, C., & Burgess, C. (2001). Characterizing semantic space: Neighborhood effects in word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 531-544.
12. Burgess, C., & Lund, K. (2000). The dynamics of meaning in memory. In E. Dietrich & A. B. Markman (Eds.), Cognitive dynamics: Conceptual and representational change in humans and machines (pp. 117-156). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
13. Carroll, J. B., & White, M. N. (1973). Word frequency and age of acquisition as determiners of picture-naming latency. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 25, 85-95. doi: 10. 1080/14640747308400325.
14. Colombo, L., & Burani, C. (2002). The influence of age of acquisition, root frequency, and context availability in processing nouns and verbs. Brain & Language, 81, 398-411.
15. Cortese, M. J., & Khanna, M. M. (2007). Age of acquisition predicts naming and lexical-decision performance above and beyond 22 other predictor variables: An analysis of 2, 342 words. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 1072-1082. doi: 10. 1080/17470210701315467.
16. Crutch, S. J., Ridha, B. H., & Warrington, E. K. (2006). The different frameworks underlying abstract and concrete knowledge: Evidence from a bilingual patient with a semantic refractory access dysphasia. Neurocase, 12, 151-163.
17. Dove, G. (2011). On the need for embodied and dis-embodied cognition. Frontiers in Psychology, 1: 242. doi: 10. 3389/fpsyg. 2010. 00242.
18. Duñabeitia, J. A., Avilés, A., Afonso, O., Scheepers, C., & Carreiras, M. (2009). Qualitative differences in the representation of abstract versus concrete words: Evidence from the visual-world paradigm. Cognition, 110, 284-292. doi: 10. 1016/j. cognition. 2008. 11. 012.
19. Duñabeitia, J. A., Avilés, A., & Carreiras, M. (2008). NoA's ark: Influence of the number of associates in visual word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 1072-1077. doi: 10. 3758/PBR. 15. 6. 1072.
20. Durda, K., & Buchanan, L. (2006). WordMine2 [Online]. Available at http://web2. uwindsor. ca/wordmine.
21. Estes, Z., & Adelman, J. S. (2008). Automatic vigilance for negative words is categorical and general. Emotion, 8, 453-457. doi: 10. 1037/a0012887.
22. Faust, M. E., Balota, D. A., Spieler, D. H., & Ferraro, F. R. (1999). Individual differences in information-processing rate and amount: Implications for group differences in response latency. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 777-799.
23. Gilhooly, K. J., & Hay, D. (1977). Imagery, concreteness, age-of-acquisition, familiarity, and meaningfulness values of 205 five-letter words having single-solution anagrams. Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation, 9, 12-17.
24. Grondin, R., Lupker, S. J., & McRae, K. (2009). Shared features dominate semantic richness effects for concrete concepts. Journal of Memory and Language, 60, 1-19. doi: 10. 1016/j. jml. 2008. 09. 001.
25. Hino, Y., & Lupker, S. J. (1996). Effects of polysemy in lexical decision and naming: An alternative to lexical access accounts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 1331-1356. doi: 10. 1037/0096-1523. 22. 6. 1331.
26. Juhasz, B. J., Yap, M. J., Dicke, J., Taylor, S. C., & Gullick, M. M. (2011). Tangible words are recognized faster: The grounding of meaning in sensory and perceptual systems. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 1683-1691. doi: 10. 1080/17470218. 2011. 605150.
27. Kousta, S. T., Vinson, D. P., & Vigliocco, G. (2009). Emotion words, regardless of polarity, have a processing advantage over neutral words. Cognition, 112, 473-481. doi: 10. 1016/j. cognition. 2009. 06. 007.
28. Lewis, P. A., Critchley, H. D., Rotshtein, P., & Dolan, R. J. (2006). Neural correlates of processing valence and arousal in affective words. Cerebral Cortex, 17, 742-748.
29. Louwerse, M. M., & Jeuniaux, P. (2010). The linguistic and embodied nature of conceptual processing. Cognition, 114, 96-104.
30. Mahon, B. Z., & Caramazza, A. (2008). A critical look at the embodied cognition hypothesis and a new proposal for grounding conceptual content. Journal of Physiology, 102, 59-70. doi: 10. 1016/j. jphysparis. 2008. 03. 004.
31. Marques, J. F., & Nunes, L. D. (2012). The contributions of language and experience to the representation of abstract and concrete words: Different weights but similar organizations. Memory & Cognition, 40, 1266-1275. doi: 10. 3758/s13421-012-0220-6.
32. McRae, K., Cree, G. S., Seidenberg, M. S., & McNorgan, C. (2005). Semantic feature production norms for a large set of living and nonliving things. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 547-559. doi: 10. 3758/BF03192726.
33. Miller, G. A. (1990). WordNet: An online lexical database. International Journal of Lexicography, 3, 235-312.
34. Nelson, D. L., McEvoy, C. L., & Schreiber, T. A. (1998). The University of South Florida word association, rhyme, and word fragment norms. Retrieved March 9, 2011, from http://w3. usf. edu/FreeAssociation/.
35. Newcombe, P. I., Cambell, C., Siakaluk, P. D., & Pexman, P. M. (2012). Effects of emotional and sensorimotor knowledge in semantic processing of concrete and abstract nouns. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6: 113. doi: 10. 3389/fnhum. 2012. 00113.
36. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
37. Paivio, A. (2007). Mind and its evolution: A dual coding theoretical approach. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
38. Paivio, A., Yuille, J. C., & Madigan, S. A. (1968). Concreteness, imagery, and meaningfulness values for 925 nouns. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 76(1, Pt. 2), 1-25. doi: 10. 1037/h0025327.
39. Pecher, D., Boot, I., & van Dantzig, S. (2011). Abstract concepts: Sensory-motor grounding, metaphors, and beyond. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 54, 217-248.
40. Pexman, P. M. (2012). Meaning-level influences on visual word recognition. In J. S. Adelman (Ed.), Visual word recognition: Vol. 2. Meaning and context, individuals and development (pp. 24-43). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
41. Pexman, P. M., Hargreaves, I. S., Edwards, J. D., Henry, L. C., & Goodyear, B. G. (2007). The neural consequences of semantic richness: When more comes to mind, less activation is observed. Psychological Science, 18, 401-406.
42. Pexman, P. M., Hargreaves, I. S., Siakaluk, P. D., Bodner, G. E., & Pope, J. (2008). There are many ways to be rich: Effects of three measures of semantic richness on visual word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 161-167. doi: 10. 3758/PBR. 15. 1. 161.
43. Pexman, P. M., Lupker, S. J., & Hino, Y. (2002). The impact of feedback semantics in visual word recognition: Number-of-features effects in lexical decision and naming tasks. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 542-549. doi: 10. 3758/BF03196311.
44. Recchia, G., & Jones, M. N. (2012). The semantic richness of abstract concepts. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6: 315. doi: 10. 3389/fnhum. 2012. 00315.
45. Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 1161-1178.
46. Schwanenflugel, P. J., Harnishfeger, K. K., & Stowe, R. W. (1988). Context availability and lexical decisions for abstract and concrete words. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 499-520.
47. Schwanenflugel, P. J., & Shoben, E. J. (1983). Differential context effects in the comprehension of abstract and concrete verbal materials. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 9, 82-102. doi: 10. 1037/0278-7393. 9. 1. 82.
48. Siakaluk, P. D., Pexman, P. M., Aguilera, L., Owen, W. J., & Sears, C. R. (2008). Evidence for the activation of sensorimotor information during visual word recognition: The body-object interaction effect. Cognition, 106, 433-443. doi: 10. 1016/j. cognition. 2006. 12. 011.
49. Simmons, W. K., Hamann, S. B., Harenski, C. L., Hu, X. P., & Barsalou, L. W. (2008). fMRI evidence for word association and situated simulation in conceptual processing. Journal of Physiology, 102, 106-119.
50. Vigliocco, G., Meteyard, L., Andrews, M., & Kousta, S. (2009). Toward a theory of semantic representation. Language & Cognition, 1, 219-248.
51. Yap, M. J., Pexman, P. M., Wellsby, M., Hargraeves, I. S., & Huff, M. (2012). An abundance of riches: Cross task comparisons of semantic richness effects in visual word recognition. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6: 53. doi: 10. 3389/fnhum. 2012. 00053.
52. Yap, M. J., Tan, S. E., Pexman, P. M., & Hargreaves, I. S. (2011). Is more always better? Effects of semantic richness on lexical decision, speeded pronunciation, and semantic classification. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 742-750. doi: 10. 3758/s13423-011-0092-y.
53. Yarkoni, T., Balota, D. A., & Yap, M. J. (2008). Moving beyond Coltheart's N: A new measure of orthographic similarity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 971-979. doi: 10. 3758/PBR. 15. 5. 971.
54. Zevin, J. D., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2002). Age of acquisition effects in word reading and other tasks. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 1-29. doi: 10. 1006/jmla. 2001. 2834.