Effects of emotional and sensorimotor knowledge in semantic processing of concrete and abstract nouns

Frontiers in Human Neuroscience

Volumn , Issue SEPTEMBER, 2012, Pages

  Ian Newcombe, P ^a   Campbell, Cale ^a   Siakaluk, Paul D ^a   Pexman, Penny M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Body object interaction; Emotional experience; Grounded cognition; Imageability; Semantic richness

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; AROUSAL; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION MAKING; EMOTIONALITY; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; IMAGINATION; LANGUAGE ABILITY; LATENT PERIOD; MENTAL TASK; NEUROPHYSIOLOGY; PREDICTION; SEMANTIC MEMORY; SEMANTICS; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SENSORIMOTOR FUNCTION; SENSORY ANALYSIS; SENSORY FEEDBACK; SENSORY STIMULATION; WORD RECOGNITION;

EID: 84933674009     PISSN: 16625161     EISSN: 16625161     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2012.00275     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. 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.
2. Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Cortese, M. J., Hutchison, K. A., Kessler, B., Loftis, B., Neely, J. H., Nelson, D. L., Simpson, G. B., & Treiman, R. (2007). The English lexicon project. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 445-459.
3. Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577-660.
4. Barsalou, L. W. (2003). Situated simulation in the human conceptual system. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18, 513-562.
5. Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617-645.
6. Barsalou, L. W. (2009). Simulation, situated conceptualization, and prediction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 364, 1281-1289.
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, embodiment, and meaning (pp. 245-284). Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.
8. Bennett, S. D. R., Burnett, A. N., Siakaluk, P. D., & Pexman, P. M. (2011). Imageability and body-object interaction ratings for 599 multisyllabic nouns. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 1100-1109.
9. Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (1999). Affective norms for English words (ANEW): Stimuli, instruction manual and affective ratings (Technical Report C-1). Gainesville, FL: Center for Research in Psychophysiology, University of Florida.
10. Casey, P. J. (1992). A reexamination of the roles of typicality and category dominance in verifying category membership. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 18, 823-834.
11. Dolan, R. J. (2002). Emotion, cognition, and behavior. Science, 298, 1191-1194.
12. Fodor, J. A. (1983). The Modularity of Mind. Cambridge: MIT Press.
13. Friendly, M., Franklin, P. E., Hoffman, D., & Rubin, D. C. (1982). The Toronto Word Pool: Norms for imagery, concreteness, orthographic variables, and grammatical usage for 1, 080 words. Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation, 14, 375-399.
14. Griffiths, T. L., Steyvers, M., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2007). Topics in semantic representation. Psychological Review, 114, 211-244.
15. Hampton, J. A. (1997). Associative and similarity-based processes in categorization decisions. Memory & Cognition, 25, 625-640.
16. Hansen, D., Siakaluk, P. D., & Pexman, P. M. (2012). The influence of print exposure on the body-object interaction effect in visual word recognition. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 6:113, 1-12. 6:113. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2012.00113
17. Hargreaves, I. S., Leonard, G., Pexman, P. M., Pittman, D., Siakaluk, P. D., & Goodyear, B. G. (2012). The neural correlates of the body-object interaction effect in semantic processing. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 6:22. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2012.00022
18. 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 & Performance, 22, 1331-1356.
19. Keith, T. Z. (2006). Multiple regression and beyond. Allyn and Bacon: Boston.
20. Kiefer, M., & Pulvermüller, F. (in press). Conceptual representations in mind and brain: Theoretical developments, current evidence and future directions. Cortex.
21. Kousta, S.-T., Vigliocco, G., Vinson, D. P., Andrews, M., & Del Campo, E. (2011). The representation of abstract words: Why emotion matters. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140, 14-34.
22. 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.
23. Kuperman, V., Stadthagen-Gonzalez, H., & Brysbaert, M. (in press). Age-of-acquisition ratings for 30 thousand English words. Behavior Research Methods.
24. Landauer, T., & Dumais, S. (1997). A solution to Plato's problem: The Latent Semantic Analysis theory of acquisition, induction and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104, 211-240.
25. Larochelle, S., & Pineau, H. (1994). Determinants of response times in the semantic verification task. Journal of Memory & Language, 33, 796-823.
26. Lund, K., & Burgess, C. (1996). Producing high-dimensional semantic spaces from lexical cooccurrence. Behavior Research Methods, Instrumentation, and Computers, 28, 203-208.
27. Niedenthal, P. M., Barsalou, L. W., Ric, F., & Krauth-Gruber, S. (2005). Embodiment in the acquisition and use of emotion knowledge. In L. Feldman Barrett, P.M. Niedenthal, & P. Winkielman (Eds.), Emotion and consciousness (pp. 21-50). New York: Guilford.
28. Niedenthal, P. M., Barsalou, L. W., Winkielman, P., Krauth-Gruber, S., & Ric, F. (2005). Embodiment in attitudes, social perception, and emotion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9, 184-211.
29. Niedenthal, P. M., Winkielman, P., Mondillon, L., & Vermeulen, N. (2009). Embodiment of emotion concepts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1120-1136.
30. Paivio, A., Yuille, J. C. & Madigan, S. A. (1968). Concreteness, imagery, and meaningfulness values for 925 nouns. Journal Of Experimental Psychology, 76, 1-25.
31. Parisi, D. (2011). The other half of the embodied mind. Frontiers in Psychology. 2:69. doi:10.3380/fpsyg.2011.00069
32. Pecher, D., & Zwaan, R. A. (Eds.). (2005). Grounding cognition: The role of perception and action in memory, language, and thinking. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
33. Pexman, P. M., Holyk, G. G., & Monfils, M.-H. (2003). Number of features effects and semantic processing. Memory & Cognition, 31, 842-855.
34. 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.
35. Phillips, C. I., Sears, C. R., & Pexman, P. M. (2012). An embodied semantic processing effect on eye gaze during sentence reading. Language & Cognition, 4, 99-114.
36. Pylyshyn, Z. (1984). Computation and Cognition: Towards a Foundation for Cognitive Science. Cambridge: MIT Press.
37. Shaoul, C., & Westbury, C. (2010a). Exploring lexical co-occurrence space using HiDEx. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 393-413.
38. Shaoul, C., & Westbury, C. (2010b). Neighborhood Density Measures for 57, 153 English words. Edmonton, AB: University of Alberta (downloaded from http://www.psych.ualberta.ca/~westburylab/downloads/westburylab.arcs.ncounts.html)
39. Siakaluk, P. D., Pexman, P. M., Aguilera, L., Owen, W. J., & Sears, C. R. (2008a). Evidence for the activation of sensorimotor information during visual word recognition: The bodyobject interaction effect. Cognition, 106, 433-443.
40. Siakaluk, P. D., Pexman, P. M., Sears, C. R., Wilson, K., Locheed, K., & Owen, W. J. (2008b). The benefits of sensorimotor knowledge: Body-object interaction facilitates semantic processing. Cognitive Science, 32, 591-605.
41. Smith, E. E., Shoben, E. J., & Rips, L. J. (1974). Structure and process in semantic memory: A feature model for semantic decisions. Psychological Review, 81, 214-241.
42. Tillotson, S. M., Siakaluk, P. D., & Pexman, P. M. (2008). Body-Object interaction ratings for 1, 618 monosyllabic nouns. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 1075-1078.
43. Tousignant, C., & Pexman, P. M. (2012). Flexible recruitment of semantic richness: Context modulates body-object interaction effects in lexical-semantic processing. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 6:53. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2012.00053
44. Vigliocco, G., Meteyard, L., Andrews, M., & Kousta, S. (2009). Toward a theory of semantic representation. Language and Cognition, 1, 219-248.
45. Wellsby, M., Siakaluk, P. D., Owen, W. O., & Pexman, P. M. (2011). Embodied semantic processing: The body-object interaction effect in a non-manual task. Language and Cognition, 3, 1-14.
46. Wilson-Mendenhall, C. D., Barrett, L. F., Simmons, W. K., & Barsalou, L. W. (2011). Grounding emotion in situated conceptualization. Neuropsychologia, 49, 1105-1127.
47. Yap, M. J., Pexman, P. M., Wellsby, M., Hargreaves, I. S., & Huff, M. (2012). An abundance of riches: Cross-task comparisons of semantic richness effects in visual word recognition. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2012.00053