Abstract
In three experiments we investigated the origin of the effects of the compatibility between the typical location of entities denoted by written words (e.g., “up” for eagle and “down” for carpet) and either the actual position of the words on the screen (e.g., upper vs. lower part of the screen), or the response position (e.g., upper- vs. lower- key presses) in binary categorization tasks. Contrary to predictions of the perceptual simulation account (Barsalou, 1999), conceptual spatial compatibility effects observed in the present study (faster RTs when the typical position of the stimulus referent in the real word was compatible with either the stimulus or response physical position) seem to be independent of whether there was an overlap between simulated processes possibly triggered by the presented stimulus and sensory-motor processes actually required by the task. Rather, they appear to depend critically on whether the involved stimulus and/or response dimensions had binary, variable (vs. fixed) values. Notably, no stimulus–stimulus compatibility effect was observed in Experiment 3, when the stimulus physical position was presented in a blocked design (i.e., it was kept constant within each block of trials). In contrast, in all three experiments, a compatibility effect between response position and another (non-spatial) conceptual dimension of the stimulus (i.e., its semantic category) was observed (i.e., an effect analogous to the MARC [linguistic markedness of response codes] effect, which is usually observed in the number domain; Nuerk et al., 2004). This pattern of results is fully accounted for by the polarity principle, according to which these effects originate from the alignment of the polarities of either different stimulus dimensions or stimulus and response dimensions.
Highlights
The embodied cognition theory (Barsalou, 1999) has proved to be a fruitful approach to the study of language processing — the impetus to provide empirical support to this approach has generated a plethora of studies and given rise to a heated debate about their findings
We will present empirical data suggesting that conceptual spatial compatibility effects in word categorization tasks – i.e., one of the most renowned phenomena reported as evidence in support of the embodied theory of language processing – are only incidentally consistent with the embodied approach
The analysis showed a main effect of Response Key, F1.78 = 5.1, p = 0.027, η2p = 0.06 a main effect of Semantic Category, F1.78 = 11.2, p = 0.001, η2p = 0.13, and, crucially, a significant interaction, F1.78 = 67.8, p < 0.001, η2p = 0.46: Responses to living entities were faster with the right than with the left hand (614 vs. 638 ms) and responses to non-living entities were faster with the left than with the right hand (637 vs. 679 ms). These results indicate that, the performance of participants in Experiment 3 was not affected by the congruency between perceptual and conceptual stimulus dimensions, it was affected by the compatibility between other critical task dimensions; we observed a correspondence effect that involved the polarities of the stimulus semantic category and response position
Summary
The embodied cognition theory (Barsalou, 1999) has proved to be a fruitful approach to the study of language processing — the impetus to provide empirical support to this approach has generated a plethora of studies and given rise to a heated debate about their findings. Spatial Effects in Word Categorization evidence on this issue has important theoretical consequences for explanatory hypotheses of both embodied cognition and language (and their intersection). We will present empirical data suggesting that conceptual spatial compatibility effects in word categorization tasks – i.e., one of the most renowned phenomena reported as evidence in support of the embodied theory of language processing – are only incidentally consistent with the embodied approach. These phenomena appear to be more properly accounted for by an alternative view, which traces them back to more general, task-related, mechanisms of symbolic compatibility
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
