Just out of reach: On the reliability of the action-sentence compatibility effect

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

Volumn 144, Issue 6, 2015, Pages e116-e141

  Papesh, Megan H ^a  

^a LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Action sentence compatibility; Embodied cognition; Reading

Indexed keywords

ADULT; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MOTOR ACTIVITY; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; READING; REPRODUCIBILITY; YOUNG ADULT;

ADULT; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MOTOR ACTIVITY; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; READING; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84966800372     PISSN: 00963445     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/xge0000125     Document Type: Article

References (79)

1. Alter, A. L., Oppenheimer, D. M., Epley, N., & Eyre, R. N. (2007). Overcoming intuition: Metacognitive difficulty activates analytic reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 569-576. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.136.4.569
2. Barr, DJ., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255-278. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001
3. Barsalou, LW. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577-609.
4. Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617-645. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639
5. Borreggine, KL., & Kaschak, M. P. (2006). The action-sentence compatibility effect: It's all in the timing. Cognitive Science, 30, 1097-1112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0000_91
6. Boulenger, V., Roy, A., Paulignan, Y., Deprez, V., Jeannerod, M., & Nazir, T(2006). Cross-talk between language processes and overt motor behavior in the first 200 msec of processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 1607-1615. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2006.18.10.1607
7. Brandt, MJ., Jzerman, H., Dijksterhuis, A., Farach, F. J., Geller, J., Giner-Sorolla, R., Veer, A. (2014). The replication recipe: What makes for a convincing replication? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 50, 217-224. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.10.005
8. Bub, DN., & Masson, M. E. (2010). Grasping beer mugs: On the dynamics of alignment effects induced by handled objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36, 341-358. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0017606
9. Buccino, G., Riggio, L., Melli, G., Binkofski, F., Gallese, V., & Rizzolatti, G(2005). Listening to action-related sentences modulates the activity of the motor system: A combined TMS and behavioral study. Cognitive Brain Research, 24, 355-363. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2005.02.020
10. Cacioppo, JT., Priester, J. R., & Berntson, G. G. (1993). Rudimentary determinants of attitudes. II: Arm flexion and extension have differential effects on attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 5-17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.1.5
11. Chemero, A. (2011). Radical embodied cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
12. Chen, M., & Bargh, J. A. (1999). Consequences of automatic evaluation: Immediate behavioral predispositions to approach or avoid the stimulus. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 215-224. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167299025002007
13. Chersi, F., Thill, S., Ziemke, T., & Borghi, AM. (2010). Sentence processing: Linking language to motor chains. Frontiers in Neurorobotics, 4, 4. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnbot.2010.00004
14. Cumming, G. (2014). The new statistics: Why and how. Psychological Science, 25, 7-29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797613504966
15. de Bruin, A., Treccani, B., & Della Salla, S(2014). Cognitive advantage in bilingualism: An example of publication bias? Psychological Science, 26, 99-107.
16. de Vega, M. (2008). Levels of embodiment: from pointing to counterfactuals. In M. de Vega, A. M. Glenberg, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Symbols and embodiment. Debates on meaning and cognition (pp. 285-308). New York: Oxford University Press.
17. de Vega, M., Moreno, V., & Castillo, D. (2013). The comprehension of action-related sentences may cause interference rather than facilitation on matching actions. Psychological Research, 77, 20-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00426-011-0356-1
18. de Vega, M., & Urrutia, M(2011). Counterfactual sentences activate embodied meaning: An action-sentence compatibility effect study. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 23, 962-973. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2011.590471
19. *Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175-191. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
20. Ferguson, CJ., & Heene, M. (2012). A vast graveyard of undead theories publication bias and psychological science's aversion to the null. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 555-561. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1745691612459059
21. Fitts, PM., & Seeger, C. M. (1953). S-R compatibility: Spatial characteristics of stimulus and response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46, 199-210. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0062827
22. Francis, G. (2012). Too good to be true: Publication bias in two prominent studies from experimental psychology. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 151-156. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0227-9
23. Francis, G. (2013). Replication, statistical consistency, and publication bias. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 57, 153-169. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2013.02.003
24. Freeman, JB., & Ambady, N. (2009). Motions of the hand expose the partial and parallel activation of stereotypes. Psychological Science, 20, 1183-1188. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02422.x
25. Gallese, V., & Lakoff, G(2005). The Brain's concepts: The role of the Sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22, 455-479. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02643290442000310
26. Glenberg, AM. (1997). What memory is for: Creating meaning in the service of action. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 20, 41-50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X97470012
27. Glenberg, AM. (2010). Embodiment as a unifying perspective for psychology. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 1, 586-596.
28. Glenberg, A. M. (2015). Few believe the world is flat: How embodiment is changing the scientific understanding of cognition. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69, 165-171. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/cep0000056
29. Glenberg, AM., & Kaschak, M. P. (2002). Grounding language in action. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 558-565. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03196313
30. Glenberg, AM., & Robertson, D. A. (1999). Indexical understanding of instructions. Discourse Processes, 28, 1-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01638539909545067
31. Glenberg, AM., & 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2714
32. Glenberg, A. M., Sato, M., & Cattaneo, L. (2008). Use-induced motor plasticity affects the processing of abstract and concrete language. Current Biology, 18, R290-R291. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2008.02.036
33. Glenberg, AM., Sato, M., Cattaneo, L., Riggio, L., Palumbo, D., & Buccino, G. (2008). Processing abstract language modulates motor system activity. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 905-919. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17470210701625550
34. Glenberg, AM., Witt, J. K., & Metcalfe, J. (2013). From the revolution to embodiment: 25 years of cognitive psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8, 573-585. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1745691613498098
35. Harnad, S. (1990). The symbol grounding problem. Pyusica D, 42, 335-346. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0167-2789(90)90087-6
36. Hauk, O., Johnsrude, I., & Pulvermüller, F(2004). Somatotopic representation of action words in human motor and premotor cortex. Neuron, 41, 301-307. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0896-6273(03)00838-9
37. Hickok, G. (2009). Eight problems for the mirror neuron theory of action understanding in monkeys and humans. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21, 1229-1243. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2009.21189
38. Horchak, OV., Giger, J. C., Cabral, M., & Pochwatko, G. (2014). From demonstration to theory in embodied language comprehension: A review. Cognitive Systems Research, 29-30, 66-85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys.2013.09.002
39. Jeffreys, H. (1961). Theory of probability (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
40. Kaschak, M. P., & Borreggine, K. L. (2008). Temporal dynamics of the action-sentence compatibility effect. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 883-895. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17470210701623852
41. Kline, RB. (2004). Beyond significance testing: Reforming data analysis methods in behavioral research. Washington, DC: APA Books. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/10693-000
42. Kontra, C., Lyons, DJ., Fischer, S. M., & Beilock, S. L. (2015). Physical experience enhances science learning. Psychological Science, 26, 737-749. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797615569355
43. Kruschke, JK. (2010). Doing Bayesian data analysis: A tutorial with R and BUGS. New York, NY: Academic Press.
44. Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
45. Mahon, BZ. (2015a). The burden of embodied cognition. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69, 172-178. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/cep0000060
46. Mahon, BZ. (2015b). Response to Glenberg: Conceptual content does not constrain the representational format of concepts. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69, 179-180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/cep0000059
47. Mahon, BZ., & Caramazza, A. (2008). A critical look at the embodied cognition hypothesis and a new proposal for grounding conceptual content. Journal of Physiology-Paris, 102, 59-70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jphysparis.2008.03.004
48. Markman, AB., & Brendl, C. M. (2005). Constraining theories of embodied cognition. Psychological Science, 16, 6-10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.00772.x
49. Masson, ME. (2015). Toward a deeper understanding of embodiment. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69, 159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/cep0000055
50. Morey, RD., & Rouder, J. N. (2011). Bayes factor approaches for testing interval null hypotheses. Psychological Methods, 16, 406-419. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0024377
51. Nazir, TA., Boulenger, V., Roy, A., Silber, B., Jeannerod, M., & Paulignan, Y. (2008). Language-induced motor perturbations during the execution of a reaching movement. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 933-943. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17470210701625667
52. Newell, A., & Simon, HA. (1972). Human problem solving (Vol. 104, No. 9). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
53. Papesh, M. H., & Goldinger, S. D. (2012). Memory in motion: Movement dynamics reveal memory strength. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 906-913. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0281-3
54. Proffitt, DR. (2006). Embodied perception and the economy of action. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 110-122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00008.x
55. Pulvermüller, F(1999). Words in the brain's language. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 253-279. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X9900182X
56. Pulvermüller, F., Hauk, O., Nikulin, VV., & Ilmoniemi, R. J. (2005). Functional links between motor and language systems. European Journal of Neuroscience, 21, 793-797. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-9568.2005.03900.x
57. Rouder, JN., Speckman, P. L., Sun, D., Morey, R. D., & Iverson, G. (2009). Bayesian t tests for accepting and rejecting the null hypothesis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 225-237. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.2.225
58. Rueschemeyer, SA., Glenberg, A. M., Kaschak, M. P., Mueller, K., & Friederici, A. D. (2010). Top-down and bottom-up contributions to understanding sentences describing objects in motion. Embodied and Grounded Cognition, 46. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00183
59. Sato, M., Mengarelli, M., Riggio, L., Gallese, V., & Buccino, G(2008). Task related modulation of the motor system during language processing. Brain and Language, 105, 83-90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2007.10.001
60. Searle, JR. (1980). Minds, brains, and programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3, 417-424. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00005756
61. Shapiro, KL., Raymond, J. E., & Arnell, K. M. (1997). The attentional blink. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 1, 291-296. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(97)01094-2
62. Shapiro, LA. (2011). Embodied cognition. London: Routledge.
63. Solarz, A. K. (1960). Latency of instrumental responses as a function of compatibility with the meaning of eliciting verbal signs. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 239-245. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0047274
64. Soliman, T., Gibson, A., & Glenberg, AM. (2013). Sensory motor mechanisms unify psychology: The embodiment of culture. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 885. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00885
65. Spivey, MJ., Grosjean, M., & Knoblich, G. (2005). Continuous attraction toward phonological competitors. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102, 10393-10398. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0503903102
66. Stepper, S., & Strack, F(1993). Proprioceptive determinants of emotional and nonemotional feelings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 211-220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.64.2.211
67. Strack, F., Martin, LL., & Stepper, S. (1988). Inhibiting and facilitating conditions of the human smile: A nonobtrusive test of the facial feedback hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 768-777. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.5.768
68. Strack, F., & Neumann, R(2000). Furrowing the brow may undermine perceived fame: The role of facial feedback in judgments of celebrity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 762-768. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167200269002
69. Tamir, M., Robinson, MD., Clore, G. L., Martin, L. L., & Whitaker, D. J. (2004). Are we puppets on a string? The contextual meaning of unconscious expressive cues. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 237-249. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167203259934
70. Taylor, LJ., & Zwaan, R. A. (2008). Motor resonance and linguistic focus. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 896-904. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17470210701625519
71. Tettamanti, M., Buccino, G., Saccuman, M. C., Gallese, V., Danna, M., Scifo, P., Perani, D. (2005). Listening to action-related sentences activates fronto-parietal motor circuits. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17, 273-281. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/0898929053124965
72. Tucker, M., & Ellis, R(2001). The potentiation of grasp types during visual object categorization. Visual Cognition, 8, 769-800. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13506280042000144
73. Wagenmakers, EJ., Wetzels, R., Borsboom, D., & van der Maas, H. L. J. (2011). Why psychologists must change the way they analyze their data: The case of psi: Comment on Bem (2011). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 426-432. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0022790
74. Weiskopf, DA. (2010). Embodied cognition and linguistic comprehension. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 41, 294-304. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2010.07.005
75. Wentura, D., Rothermund, K., & Bak, P(2000). Automatic vigilance: The attention-grabbing power of approach- and avoidance-related social information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 1024-1037. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.6.1024
76. Wilson, AD., & Golonka, S. (2013). Embodied cognition is not what you think it is. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 58.
77. Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 625-636. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03196322
78. Winer, BJ. (1971). Statistical principles in experimental design (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
79. Zwaan, R. A., & Taylor, L. J. (2006). Seeing, acting, understanding: Motor resonance in language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 1-11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.135.1.1