The comprehension of action-related sentences may cause interference rather than facilitation on matching actions
- 407 Downloads
This study used a dual-task paradigm to analyze the time course of motor resonance during the comprehension of action language. In the study, participants read sentences describing a transfer either away from (“I threw the tennis ball to my rival”) or toward themselves (“My rival threw me the tennis ball”). When the transfer verb appeared on the screen, and after a variable stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA), a visual motion cue (Experiment 1) or a static cue (Experiment 2) prompted participants to move their hand either away from or toward themselves to press a button. The results showed meaning–action interference at short SOAs and facilitation at the longest SOA for the matching conditions. These results support the hypothesis that motor processes associated with the comprehension of action-related language interfere with an overlapping motor task, whereas they facilitate a delayed motor task. These effects are discussed in terms of resonance processes in the motor cortex.
KeywordsStimulus Onset Asynchrony Motor Response Hand Movement Matching Condition Motor Evoke Potential
This research was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation to Manuel de Vega (Grant SEJ2007-66916/PSIC), as well as by the Canary Agency of Research, Innovation and Information Society (NEUROCOG project) and the European Regional Development Fund.
- Chersi, F., Thill, S., Ziemke, T., & Borghi, A.M. (2010). Sentence processing: linking language to motor chains. Frontiers in Neurorobotics, 4:4. doi: 10.3389/fnbot.2010.00004.
- Santana, E., & de Vega, M. (2011). Metaphors are embodied, and so are their literal counterparts. Frontiers in Cognition, 2:90. doi:103389/fpsyg.2011.00090.
- Sell, A. J., & Kaschak, M. P. (2010). Processing time shifts affects the execution of motor responses. Brain & Language. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2010.07.003.
- Taylor, L. J., & Zwaan, R. A. (2008). Motor resonance and linguistic focus. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 6, 896–904.Google Scholar