Linking somatic and symbolic representation in semantic memory: the dynamic multilevel reactivation framework

Psychonomic Bulletin and Review

Volumn 23, Issue 4, 2016, Pages 1002-1014

  Reilly, Jamie ^a   Peelle, Jonathan E ^b   Garcia, Amanda ^c   Crutch, Sebastian J ^d  

^a TEMPLE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Concreteness effect; Embodied cognition; Semantic memory; Semantic representation

Indexed keywords

BRAIN; COMPREHENSION; CONCEPT FORMATION; EMOTION; HUMAN; KNOWLEDGE; MEMORY; SEMANTICS; SYMBOLISM;

BRAIN; COMPREHENSION; CONCEPT FORMATION; EMOTIONS; HUMANS; KNOWLEDGE; MEMORY; SEMANTICS; SYMBOLISM;

EID: 84974782958     PISSN: 10699384     EISSN: 15315320     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/s13423-015-0824-5     Document Type: Review

References (116)

1. Acosta-Cabronero, J., Patterson, K., Fryer, T. D., Hodges, J. R., Pengas, G., Williams, G. B., & Nestor, P. J. (2011). Atrophy, hypometabolism and white matter abnormalities in semantic dementia tell a coherent story. Brain, 134(7), 2025–2035. doi:10.1093/brain/awr119
2. Allport, D. A. (1985). Distributed memory, modular subsystems and dysphasia. In S. K. Newman & R. Epstein (Eds.), Current perspectives in dysphasia (pp. 207–244). Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone.
3. Andrews, M., Vigliocco, G., & Vinson, D. (2009). Integrating experiential and distributional data to learn semantic representations. Psychological Review, 116(3), 463–498. doi:10.1037/a0016261
4. Barber, H. A., Otten, L. J., Kousta, S. T., & Vigliocco, G. (2013). Concreteness in word processing: ERP and behavioral effects in a lexical decision task. Brain and Language, 125(1), 47–53. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2013.01.005
5. Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(4), 577–660.
6. Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645.
7. Barsalou, L. W. (2009). Simulation, situated conceptualization, and prediction. Transactions of the Royal Society B, 364, 1281–1289. doi:10.1098/rstb.2008.0319
8. 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. 245–284). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
9. Barsalou, L. W., Simmons, W. K., Barbey, A. K., & Wilson, C. D. (2003). Grounding conceptual knowledge in modality-specific systems. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(2), 84–91.
10. Binder, J. R., Desai, R. H., Graves, W. W., & Conant, L. L. (2009). Where is the semantic system? A critical review and meta-analysis of 120 functional neuroimaging studies. Cerebral Cortex, 19(12), 2767–2796. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhp055
11. Binder, J. R., Westbury, C., & McKiernan, K. (2005). Distinct brain systems for processing abstract and concrete concepts. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17(6), 905–917.
12. Binney, R. J., Embleton, K. V., Jefferies, E., Parker, G. J. M., & Lambon Ralph, M. A. (2010). The ventral and inferolateral aspects of the anterior temporal lobe are crucial in semantic memory: Evidence from a novel direct comparison of distortion-corrected fMRI, rTMS, and semantic dementia. Cerebral Cortex, 20(11), 2728–2738. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhq019
13. Binney, R. J., Parker, G. J. M., & Lambon Ralph, M. A. (2012). Convergent connectivity and graded specialization in the rostral human temporal lobe as revealed by diffusion-weighted imaging probabilistic tractography. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 24(10), 1998–2014. doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00263
14. Bonner, M. F., Peelle, J. E., Cook, P. A., & Grossman, M. (2013). Heteromodal conceptual processing in the angular gyrus. NeuroImage, 71, 175–186. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.01.006
15. Bonner, M. F., Vesely, L., Price, C., Farag, C., Avants, B., & Grossman, M. (2009). Reversal of the concreteness effect in semantic dementia. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 26, 568–579.
16. Borghi, A. M., Capirci, O., Gianfreda, G., & Volterra, V. (2014). The body and the fading away of abstract concepts and words: A sign language analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 811. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00811
17. Borghi, A. M., Scorolli, C., Caligiore, D., Baldassarre, G., & Tummolini, L. (2013). The embodied mind extended: Using words as social tools. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 214. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00214
18. Caine, D., Breen, N., & Patterson, K. (2009). Emergence and progression of “non-semantic” deficits in semantic dementia. Cortex, 45(4), 483–494. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2007.07.005
19. Caramazza, A., Hillis, A. E., Rapp, B. C., & Romani, C. (1990). The multiple semantics hypothesis: Multiple confusions? Cognitive Neuropsychology, 7(3), 161–189.
20. Coltheart, M. (1981). The MRC Psycholinguistic database. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 33, 497–505.
21. Corbett, F., Jefferies, E., & Lambon Ralph, M. A. (2011). Deregulated semantic cognition follows prefrontal and temporo-parietal damage: Evidence from the impact of task constraint on nonverbal object use. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(5), 1125–1135. doi:10.1162/jocn.2010.21539
22. Coslett, H. B., Saffran, E. M., & Schwoebel, J. (2002). Knowledge of the human body: a distinct semantic domain. Neurology, 59(3), 357–363.
23. Cree, G. S., McNorgan, C., & McRae, K. (2006). Distinctive features hold a privileged status in the computation of word meaning: Implications for theories of semantic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32(4), 643–658.
24. 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(2), 163–201.
25. 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(3), 151–163.
26. Crutch, S. J., Troche, J., Reilly, J., & Ridgway, G. R. (2013). Abstract conceptual feature ratings: The role of emotion, magnitude, and other cognitive domains in the organization of abstract conceptual knowledge. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 186. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2013.00186
27. Crutch, S. J., & Warrington, E. K. (2003). The selective impairment of fruit and vegetable knowledge: A multiple processing channels account of fine-grain category specificity. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 20(3–6), 355–372.
28. Crutch, S. J., & Warrington, E. K. (2005). Abstract and concrete concepts have structurally different representational frameworks. Brain, 128(3), 615–627.
29. Crutch, S. J., & Warrington, E. K. (2011). Different patterns of spoken and written word comprehension deficit in aphasic stroke patients. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 28(6), 414–434. doi:10.1080/02643294.2012.673481
30. Crutch, S. J., Williams, P., Ridgway, G. R., & Borgenicht, L. (2012). The role of polarity in antonym and synonym conceptual knowledge: Evidence from stroke aphasia and multidimensional ratings of abstract words. Neuropsychologia, 50(11), 2636–2644.
31. Damasio, A. R. (1989). Time-locked multiregional retroactivation: A systems-level proposal for the neuralsubstrates of recall and recognition. Cognition, 33(1–2), 25–62.
32. Damasio, A. R., & Damasio, H. (1994). Cortical systems for retrieval of concrete knowledge: The convergence zone framework. In C. Koch & J. L. Davis (Eds.), Large-scale neuronal theories of the brain (pp. 61–74). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
33. Deacon, T. W. (1998). The symbolic species. New York, NY: Norten.
34. Dove, G. (2009). Beyond perceptual symbols: A call for representational pluralism. Cognition, 110(3), 412–431. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2008.11.016
35. Dove, G. (2014). Thinking in words: Language as an embodied medium of thought. Topics in Cognitive Science, 6, 371–389. doi:10.1111/tops.12102
36. Fairhall, S. L., & Caramazza, A. (2013). Brain regions that represent amodal conceptual knowledge. Journal of Neuroscience, 33(25), 10552–10558. doi:10.1523/jneurosci. 0051-13.2013
37. 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(4), 339–357.
38. Gage, N., & Hickok, G. (2005). Multiregional cell assemblies, temporal binding and the representation of conceptual knowledge in cortex: A modern theory by a “classical” neurologist, Carl Wernicke. Cortex, 41(6), 823–832.
39. Gallese, V., & Lakoff, G. (2005). The brain’s concepts: The role of the sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22(3), 455–479. doi:10.1080/02643290442000310
40. Golinkoff, R. M., Mervis, C. B., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (1994). Early object labels: The case for a developmental lexical principles framework. Journal of Child Language, 21(1), 122–155. doi:10.1017/S0305000900008692
41. Gonnerman, L. M., Andersen, E. S., Devlin, J. T., Kempler, D., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1997). Double dissociation of semantic categories in Alzheimer’s disease. Brain and Language, 57(2), 254–279.
42. Graves, W. W., Binder, J. R., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2013). Noun-noun combination: Meaningfulness ratings and lexical statistics for 2,160 word pairs. Behavior Research Methods, 45(2), 463–469. doi:10.3758/s13428-012-0256-3
43. Harnad, S. (1990). The symbol grounding problem. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 42(1–3), 335–346. doi:10.1016/0167-2789(90)90087-6
44. Hauk, O., Johnsrude, I., & Pulvermüller, F. (2004). Somatotopic representation of action words in human motor and premotor cortex. Neuron, 41, 207–301.
45. Hoenig, K., Sim, E. J., Bochev, V., Herrnberger, B., & Kiefer, M. (2008). Conceptual flexibility in the human brain: Dynamic recruitment of semantic maps from visual, motor, and motion-related areas. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20(10), 1799–1814.
46. Hoffman, P., Binney, R. J., & Lambon Ralph, M. A. (2014). Differing contributions of inferior prefrontal and anterior temporal cortex to concrete and abstract conceptual knowledge. Cortex, 63(c), 250–266. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2014.09.001
47. Jackendoff, R. (1987). On beyond zebra: The relation of linguistic and visual information. Cognition, 26(2), 89–114. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(87)90026-6
48. Jefferies, E., Patterson, K., & Lambon Ralph, M. A. (2008). Deficits of knowledge versus executive control in semantic cognition: Insights from cued naming. Neuropsychologia, 46, 649–658. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.09.007
49. Jones, G. V. (1985). Deep dyslexia, imageability, and ease of predication. Brain and Language, 24(1), 1–19. doi:10.1016/0093-934x(85)90094-x
50. Jouen, A. L., Ellmore, T. M., Madden, C. J., Pallier, C., Dominey, P. F., & Ventre-Dominey, J. (2014). Beyond the word and image: Characteristics of a common meaning system for language and vision revealed by functional and structural imaging. NeuroImage. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.11.024
51. Juhasz, B. J. (2005). Age-of-acquisition effects in word and picture identification. Psychological Bulletin, 131(5), 684–712.
52. Kandel, E. (2006). In search of memory. New York, NY: Norton.
53. Kemmerer, D. (2015). Are the motor features of verb meanings represented in the precentral motor cortices? Yes, but within the context of a flexible, multilevel architecture for conceptual knowledge. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review. doi:10.3758/s13423-014-0784-1
54. Kiefer, M., & Martens, U. (2010). Attentional sensitization of unconscious cognition: Task sets modulate subsequent masked semantic priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 139(3), 464–489. doi:10.1037/a0019561
55. Knoblauch, A. (2008). Symbols and embodiment from the perspective of a neural modeler. In Symbols and embodiment: Debates on meaning and cognition. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
56. Kousta, S.-T. 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(1), 14–34. doi:10.1037/a0021446
57. Lambon Ralph, M. A. (2014a). Neurocognitive insights on conceptual knowledge and its breakdown. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 369(1634), 20120392. doi:10.1098/rstb.2012.0392
58. Lambon Ralph, M. A. (2014b). Personal communication. 19 June 2015. Philadelphia, PA.
59. Lambon Ralph, M. A., Mcclelland, J. L., Patterson, K., Galton, C. J., & Hodges, J. R. (2001). No right to speak? The relationship between object naming and semantic impairment: Neuropsychological evidence and a computational model. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 13(3), 341–356.
60. Lambon Ralph, M. A., & Patterson, K. (2008). Generalization and differentiation in semantic memory: Insights from semantic dementia. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1124, 61–76. doi:10.1196/annals.1440.006
61. Lambon Ralph, M. A., Sage, K., Jones, R. W., & Mayberry, E. J. (2010). Coherent concepts are computed in the anterior temporal lobes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107(6), 2717–2722. doi:10.1073/pnas.0907307107
62. Landauer, T. K., & Dumais, S. T. (1997). Solution to Plato’s problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104, 211–240.
63. Loiselle, M., Rouleau, I., Nguyen, D., & Dubeau, F. (2012). Comprehension of concrete and abstract words in patients with selective anterior temporal lobe resection and in patients with selective amygdalo-hippocampectomy. Neuropsychologia, 50(5), 630–639.
64. Louwerse, M. M. (2011). Symbol interdependency in symbolic and embodied cognition. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3(2), 273–302. doi:10.1111/j.1756-8765.2010.01106.x
65. Louwerse, M. M., & Jeuniaux, P. (2008). Language comprehension is both embodied and symbolic. In M. de Vega, A. M. Glenberg, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Symbols and embodiment: Debates on meaning and cognition (pp. 309–326). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
66. Louwerse, M. M., & Jeuniaux, P. (2010). The linguistic and embodied nature of conceptual processing. Cognition, 114(1), 96–104. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2009.09.002
67. Mahon, B. Z. (2014). What is embodied about cognition? Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30(4), 420–429. doi:10.1080/23273798.2014.987791
68. Mann, K., Kaplan, J. T., Damasio, A., & Meyer, K. (2012). Sight and sound converge to form modality-invariant representations in temporoparietal cortex. Journal of Neuroscience, 32(47), 16629–16636. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2342-12.2012
69. Martin, A. (2007). The representation of object concepts in the brain. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 25–45. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190143
70. Meteyard, L., Rodriguez, S., Bahrami, B., Vigliocco, G., & Cuadrado, S. R. (2012). Coming of age: A review of embodiment and the neuroscience of semantics. Cortex, 48(7), 788–804. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2010.11.002
71. Meyer, K., & Damasio, A. (2009). Convergence and divergence in a neural architecture for recognition and memory. Trends in Neurosciences, 32(7), 376–382.
72. Moffat, M., Siakaluk, P. D., Sidhu, D. M., & Pexman, P. M. (2015). Situated conceptualization and semantic processing: Effects of emotional experience and context availability in semantic categorization and naming tasks. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(2), 408–419. doi:10.3758/s13423-014-0696-0
73. Murphy, G. L. (2002). The big book of concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
74. Negri, G. A. L., Rumiati, R. I., Zadini, A., Ukmar, M., Mahon, B. Z., & Caramazza, A. (2007). What is the role of motor simulation in action and object recognition? Evidence from apraxia. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 24(8), 795–816. doi:10.1080/02643290701707412
75. Paivio, A. (2013). Dual coding theory, word abstractness, and emotion: A critical review of Kousta et al. (2011). Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 142(1), 282–287. doi:10.1037/a0027004
76. Paivio, A. (2014). Intelligence, dual coding theory, and the brain. Intelligence, 47, 141–158. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2014.09.002
77. Papeo, L., Lingnau, A., Agosta, S., Pascual-Leone, A., Battelli, L., & Caramazza, A. (2014). The origin of word-related motor activity. Cerebral Cortex. doi:10.1093/cercor/bht423
78. Patterson, K., Nestor, P. J., & Rogers, T. T. (2007). Where do you know what you know? The representation of semantic knowledge in the human brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 8(12), 976–987.
79. Pecher, D., Zeelenberg, R., & Barsalou, L. W. (2004). Sensorimotor simulations underlie conceptual representations: Modality-specific effects of prior activation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11(1), 164–167.
80. Pexman, P. M., Hargreaves, I. S., Edwards, J. D., Henry, L. C., & Goodyear, B. G. (2007). Neural correlates of concreteness in semantic categorization. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19(8), 1407–1419. doi:10.1162/jocn.2007.19.8.1407
81. Plaut, D. C., & Shallice, T. (1993). Deep dyslexia: A case study of connectionist neuropsychology. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 10(5), 377–500. doi:10.1080/02643299308253469
82. Pobric, G., Lambon Ralph, M. A., & Jefferies, E. (2009). The role of the anterior temporal lobes in the comprehension of concrete and abstract words: rTMS evidence. Cortex, 45(9), 1104–1110.
83. Postle, N., McMahon, K. L., Meredith, M., & de Zubicaray, G. I. (2008). Action word mearning representations in cytoarchitectonically defined primary and premotor cortices. NeuroImage, 43, 634–644.
84. Price, A. R., Bonner, M. F., Peelle, J. E., & Grossman, M. (2015). Converging evidence for the neuroanatomic basis of combinatorial semantics in the angular gyrus. Journal of Neuroscience, 35(7), 3276–3284. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI. 3446-14.2015
85. Pulvermüller, F. (2013). Semantic embodiment, disembodiment or misembodiment? In search of meaning in modules and neuron circuits. Brain and Language, 127(1), 86–103. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2013.05.015
86. Pulvermüller, F., Moseley, R. L., Egorova, N., Shebani, Z., & Boulenger, V. (2014). Motor cognition-motor semantics: Action perception theory of cognition and communication. Neuropsychologia, 55, 71–84. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.12.002
87. Raposo, A., Moss, H. E., Stamatakis, E. A., & Tyler, L. K. (2009). Modulation of motor and premotor cortices by actions, action words and action sentences. Neuropsychologia, 47(2), 388–396. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.09.017
88. Reilly, J., Chrysikou, E. G., & Ramey, C. H. (2007). Support for hybrid models of the age of acquisition of English nouns. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(6), 1164–1170.
89. Reilly, J., Harnish, S., Garcia, A., Hung, J., Rodriguez, A. D., & Crosson, B. (2014). Lesion symptom mapping of manipulable object naming in nonfluent aphasia: Can a brain be both embodied and disembodied? Cognitive Neuropsychology, 31(4), 287–312. doi:10.1080/02643294.2014.914022
90. Reilly, J., & Kean, J. (2007). Formal distinctiveness of high- and low-imageability nouns: Analyses and theoretical implications. Cognitive Science, 31(1), 157–168. doi:10.1080/03640210709336988
91. Reilly, J., & Peelle, J. E. (2008). Effects of semantic impairment on language processing in semantic dementia. Seminars in Speech and Language, 29, 32–43.
92. Rogers, T. T., Hocking, J., Noppeney, U., Mechelli, A., Gorno-Tempini, M. L., Patterson, K., & Price, C. J. (2006). Anterior temporal cortex and semantic memory: Reconciling findings from neuropsychology and functional imaging. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 6(3), 201–213.
93. Rogers, T. T., Lambon Ralph, M. A., Garrard, P., Bozeat, S., McClelland, J. L., Hodges, J. R., & Patterson, K. (2004). Structure and deterioration of semantic memory: A neuropsychological and computational investigation. Psychological Review, 111(1), 205–235.
94. Rosci, C., Chiesa, V., Laiacona, M., & Capitani, E. (2003). Apraxia is not associated to a disproportionate naming impairment for manipulable objects. Brain and Cognition, 53(2), 412–415. doi:10.1016/s0278-2626(03)00156-8
95. Samson, D., & Pillon, A. (2003). A case of impaired knowledge for fruit and vegetables. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 20(3–6), 373–400.
96. 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(1), 82–102.
97. Searle, J. (1980). Minds, brains, and programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(3), 417–457.
98. Seghier, M. (2013). The angular gyrus: Multiple functions and multiple subdivisions. The Neuroscientist, 19(1), 43–61. doi:10.1177/1073858412440596
99. Shallice, T., & Cooper, R. P. (2013). Is there a semantic system for abstract words? Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7(175). doi:10.3389/fnhum.2013.00175
100. Shapiro, L. (2008). Symbolism, embodied cognition, and the broader debate. In Symbols and embodiment: Debates on meaning and cognition (pp. 57–74). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
101. Simmons, K., & Barsalou, L. (2003). The similarity-in-topography principle: Reconciling theories of conceptual deficits. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 20, 451–486.
102. Sporns, O. (2012). From simple graphs to the connectome: Networks in neuroimaging. NeuroImage, 62(2), 881–886. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.08.085
103. Sporns, O., Honey, C. J., & Ko, R. (2007). Identification and classification of hubs in brain networks. PLoS ONE, 10(2), e1049. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0001049
104. Tranel, D., Grabowski, T. J., Lyon, J., & Damasio, H. (2005). Naming the same entities from visual or from auditory stimulation engages similar regions of left inferotemporal cortices. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17(8), 1293–1305. doi:10.1162/0898929055002508
105. Troche, J., Crutch, S. J., & Reilly, J. (2014). Clustering, hierarchical organization, and the topography of abstract and concrete nouns. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 360. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00360
106. Tyler, L. K., Stamatakis, E. A., Bright, P., Acres, K., Abdallah, S., Rodd, J. M., & Moss, H. E. (2004). Processing objects at different levels of specificity. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16(3), 351–362. doi:10.1162/089892904322926692
107. Van Dam, W. O., van Dijk, M., Bekkering, H., & Rueschemeyer, S. A. (2012). Flexibility in embodied lexical-semantic representations. Human Brain Mapping, 33(10), 2322–2333. doi:10.1002/hbm.21365
108. Vigliocco, G., Kousta, S.-T., Della Rosa, P. A., Vinson, D. P., Tettamanti, M., Devlin, J. T., & Cappa, S. F. (2014). The neural representation of abstract words: The role of emotion. Cerebral Cortex (New York, N.Y.: 1991), 24(7), 1767–1777. doi:10.1093/cercor/bht025
109. 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(4), 422–488. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2003.09.001
110. Wang, J., Conder, J. A., Blitzer, D. N., & Shinkareva, S. V. (2010). Neural representation of abstract and concrete concepts: A meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies. Human Brain Mapping, 31(10), 1459–1468. doi:10.1002/hbm.20950
111. Warrington, E. K. (1975). The selective impairment of semantic memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 27(4), 635–657.
112. Westbury, C. F., Shaoul, C., Hollis, G., Smithson, L., Briesemesiter, B. B., Hofmann, M. J., & Jacobs, A. M. (2013). Now you see it, now you don’t: On emotion, context, and the algorithmic prediction of human imageability judgments. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 991.
113. Willems, R. M., & Casasanto, D. (2011). Flexibility in embodied language understanding. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 116. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00116
114. Zdrazilova, L., & Pexman, P. M. (2013). Grasping the invisible: Semantic processing of abstract words. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20(6), 1312–1318. doi:10.3758/s13423-013-0452-x
115. Zwaan, R. A. (2008). Experiential traces and mental simulations in language comprehension. In M. de Vega, A. M. Glenberg, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Symbols and embodiment: Debates on meaning and cognition (pp. 165–180). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
116. Zwaan, R. A. (2014). Embodiment and language comprehension: Reframing the discussion. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(5), 229–234. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2014.02.008