Strong versus weak embodiment: Spatial iconicity in physical, abstract, and social semantic categories.
Spatial iconicity
abstract concept
embodied cognition
physical concept
social concept
Journal
Scandinavian journal of psychology
ISSN: 1467-9450
Titre abrégé: Scand J Psychol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0404510
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2023
Oct 2023
Historique:
revised:
11
01
2023
received:
22
06
2022
accepted:
24
01
2023
medline:
19
9
2023
pubmed:
28
2
2023
entrez:
27
2
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Perceptual and action systems seem to be related to complex cognitive processes, but the scope of grounded or embodied cognition has been questioned. Zwaan and Yaxley (2003) proposed that cognitive processes of making semantic relatedness judgments can be facilitated when word pairs are presented in ways that their referents maintain their iconic configuration rather than their reverse-iconic configuration (the spatial iconicity effect). This effect has been observed in different semantic categories using specific experiments, but it is known that embodiment is highly dependent on task demands. The present study analyzed the spatial iconicity effect in three semantic categories (physical, abstract, and social) using the same experimental criteria to determine the scope of embodied cognition. In this reaction-time experiment, 75 participants judged the semantic relatedness of 384 word pairs whose experimental items were presented in their iconic or reverse-iconic configurations. Two mixed-effects models with crossed random effects revealed that the interaction between word meaning and spatial position was present only for physical concepts but neither for abstract nor social concepts. Within the framework of strong and weak embodiment theories, the data support weak embodiment theory as the most explicative one.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Perceptual and action systems seem to be related to complex cognitive processes, but the scope of grounded or embodied cognition has been questioned. Zwaan and Yaxley (2003) proposed that cognitive processes of making semantic relatedness judgments can be facilitated when word pairs are presented in ways that their referents maintain their iconic configuration rather than their reverse-iconic configuration (the spatial iconicity effect). This effect has been observed in different semantic categories using specific experiments, but it is known that embodiment is highly dependent on task demands.
METHOD
METHODS
The present study analyzed the spatial iconicity effect in three semantic categories (physical, abstract, and social) using the same experimental criteria to determine the scope of embodied cognition. In this reaction-time experiment, 75 participants judged the semantic relatedness of 384 word pairs whose experimental items were presented in their iconic or reverse-iconic configurations.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Two mixed-effects models with crossed random effects revealed that the interaction between word meaning and spatial position was present only for physical concepts but neither for abstract nor social concepts.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Within the framework of strong and weak embodiment theories, the data support weak embodiment theory as the most explicative one.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
574-581Subventions
Organisme : Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad
ID : Grant PSI2013-47219-P
Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Authors. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology published by Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
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, 47-53.
Bardolph, M. & Coulson, S. (2014). How vertical hand movements' impact brain activity elicited by literally and metaphorically related words: An ERP study of embodied metaphor. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 1-10.
Barsalou, L.W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617-645.
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1-48.
Berndt, E., Dudschig, C., Miller, J. & Kaup, B. (2019). A replication attempt of hemispheric differences in semantic-relatedness judgments (Zwaan & Yaxley, 2003). Acta Psychologica, 198, 102871.
Borghi, A.M., Binkofski, F., Castelfranchi, C., Cimatti, F., Scorolli, C. & Tummolini, L. (2017). The challenge of abstract concepts. Psychological Bulletin, 143, 263-292.
Casasanto, D. (2009). Embodiment of abstract concepts: Good and bad in right-and left-handers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138, 351-367.
Clark, A. (2008). Pressing the flesh: ATension in the study of the embodied, embedded mind? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 76, 37-59.
Coello, Y. & Fischer, M.H. (Eds.). (2016). Perceptual and emotional embodiment: Foundations of embodied cognition. New York, NY: Routledge.
Dudschig, C., Lachmair, M., de la Vega, I., De Filippis, M. & Kaup, B. (2012). Do task-irrelevant direction-associated motion verbs affect action planning? Evidence from a Stroop paradigm. Memory & Cognition, 40, 1081-1094.
Dudschig, C., Souman, J., Lachmair, M., de la Vega, I. & Kaup, B. (2013). Reading “sun” and looking up: The influence of language on saccadic eye movements in the vertical dimension. PLoS One, 8, 1-7.
Dunn, B., Kamide, Y., & Scheepers, C. (2014). Hearing “moon” and looking up: Word-related spatial associations facilitate saccades to congruent locations. Proceedings of the 36th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Quebec City, Canada.
Estes, Z., Verges, M. & Barsalou, L.W. (2008). Head up, foot down: Object words orient attention to the objects' typical location. Psychological Science, 19, 93-97.
Fischer, M.H. & Coello, Y. (Eds.). (2016). Conceptual and interactive embodiment: Foundations of embodied cognition. New York, NY: Routledge.
Gagnon, S., Brunye, T., Robin, C., Mahoney, C. & Taylor, H.A. (2011). High and mighty: Implicit associations between space and social status. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 1-10.
Glenberg, A.M. & Gallese, V. (2012). Action-based language: A theory of language acquisition, comprehension, and production. Cortex, 48, 905-922.
Goldinger, S.D., Papesh, M.H., Barnhart, A.S., Hansen, W.A. & Hout, M.C. (2016). The poverty of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23, 959-978.
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.
Landauer, T.K., McNamara, D.S., Dennis, S. & Kintsch, W. (2007). Handbook of latent semantic analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Louwerse, M.M. (2011). Symbol interdependency in symbolic and embodied cognition. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3, 273-302.
Louwerse, M.M. (2018). Knowing the meaning of a word by the linguistic and perceptual company it keeps. Topics in Cognitive Science, 10, 573-589.
Lu, L., Schubert, T.W. & Zhu, L. (2017). The spatial representation of power in children. Cognitive Processing, 18, 375-385.
Machery, E. (2007). Concept empiricism: A methodological critique. Cognition, 104, 19-46.
Mahon, B.Z. (2015a). What is embodied about cognition? Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30(4), 420-429.
Mahon, B.Z. (2015b). The burden of embodied cognition. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue Canadienne de Psychologie Expérimentale, 69, 172-178.
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-Paris, 102, 59-70.
Mahon, B.Z. & Hickok, G. (2016). Arguments about the nature of concepts: Symbols, embodiment, and beyond. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23, 941-958. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1045-2.
Malhi, S.K. & Buchanan, L. (2018). A test of the symbol interdependency hypothesis with both concrete and abstract stimuli. PLoS One, 13, 1-25.
Martínez-Huertas, J.A., Olmos, R. & Ferrer, E. (2022). Model selection and model averaging for mixed-effects models with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 57(4), 603-619.
Matuschek, H., Kliegl, R., Vasishth, S., Baayen, H. & Bates, D. (2017). Balancing type I error and power in linear mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 94, 305-315.
Meteyard, L., Bahrami, B. & Vigliocco, G. (2007). Motion detection and motion verbs: Language affects low-level visual perception. Psychological Science, 18, 1007-1013.
Meteyard, L., Rodriguez-Cuadrado, S., Bahrami, B. & Vigliocco, G. (2012). Coming of age: A review of embodiment and the neuroscience of semantics. Cortex, 48, 788-804.
Ostarek, M. & Vigliocco, G. (2017). Reading sky and seeing a cloud: On the relevance of events for perceptual simulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43, 579-590.
Pecher, D., Boot, I. & van Dantzig, S. (2011). Abstract concepts: Sensory-motor grounding, metaphors, and beyond. In B.H. Ross (Ed.), Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 54, pp. 217-248). Burlington: Academic Press.
Pecher, D., van Dantzig, S., Boot, I., Zanolie, K. & Huber, D.E. (2010). Congruency between word position and meaning is caused by task-induced spatial attention. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 1-8.
Pulvermüller, F. (2013). Semantic embodiment, disembodiment or misembodiment? In search of meaning in modules and neuron circuits. Brain and Language, 127, 86-103.
R Development Core Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. ISBN 3-900051-07-0. http://www.R-project.org/.
Sebastián, N., Martí, M.A., Carreiras, M. & Cuetos, F. (2000). LEXESP. Léxico Informatizado del Español. Barcelona: Edicions Universitat de Barcelona.
Šetić, M. & Domijan, D. (2007). The influence of vertical spatial orientation on property verification. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22, 297-312.
de Vega, M., Glenberg, A. & Graesser, A. (2012). Symbols and embodiment: Debates on meaning and cognition. (pp. 456). Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199217274.001.0001
Wang, H., Jiang, Z., Feng, X. & Lu, Z. (2020). Spatial iconicity of moral concepts: Co-dependence of linguistic and embodied symbols. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 52(2), 128-138.
Yang, H., Nick Reid, J., Katz, A.N. & Li, D. (2021). The embodiment of power as forward/backward movement in Chinese and English speakers. Metaphor and Symbol, 36, 181-193.
Zanolie, K., Van Dantzig, S., Boot, I., Wijnen, J., Schubert, T.W., Giessner, S.R. et al. (2012). Mighty metaphors: Behavioral and ERP evidence that power shifts attention on a vertical dimension. Brain and Cognition, 78, 50-58.
Zwaan, R.A. (2014). Embodiment and language comprehension: Reframing the discussion. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18, 229-234.
Zwaan, R.A. (2016). Situation models, mental simulations, and abstract concepts in discourse comprehension. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23, 1028-1034.
Zwaan, R.A. & Yaxley, R.H. (2003). Spatial iconicity affects semantic relatedness judgments. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 954-958.