Advertisement

Behavior Research Methods

, Volume 51, Issue 1, pp 1–13 | Cite as

Getting a grip on sensorimotor effects in lexical–semantic processing

  • Alison Heard
  • Christopher R. Madan
  • Andrea B. Protzner
  • Penny M. PexmanEmail author
Article

Abstract

One of the strategies that researchers have used to investigate the role of sensorimotor information in lexical–semantic processing is to examine the effects of words’ rated body–object interaction (BOI; i.e., the ease with which the human body can interact with a word’s referent). Processing tends to be facilitated for words with high as compared with low BOI, across a wide variety of tasks. Such effects have been referenced in debates over the nature of semantic representations, but their theoretical import has been limited by the fact that BOI is a fairly coarse measure of sensorimotor experience with words’ referents. In the present study, we collected ratings for 621 words on seven semantic dimensions (graspability, ease of pantomime, number of actions, animacy, size, danger, and usefulness), in order to investigate which attributes are most strongly related to BOI ratings and to lexical–semantic processing. BOI ratings were obtained from previous norming studies (Bennett, Burnett, Siakaluk, & Pexman in Behavior Research Methods, 43, 1100–1109, 2011; Tillotson, Siakaluk, & Pexman in Behavior Research Methods, 40, 1075–1078, 2008), and measures of lexical–semantic processing were obtained from previous behavioral megastudies involving either the semantic categorization task (concrete/abstract decision; Pexman, Heard, Lloyd, & Yap in Behavior Research Methods, 49, 407–417, 2017) or the lexical decision task (Balota et al., Behavior Research Methods, 39, 445–459, 2007). The results showed that the motor dimensions of graspability, ease of pantomime, and number of actions were all related to BOI, and that these dimensions together explained more variance in semantic processing than did the BOI ratings alone. These ratings will be useful for researchers who wish to study how different kinds of bodily interactions influence lexical–semantic processing and cognition.

Keywords

Body-object interaction Semantic decision task Lexical decision task Motor ratings Visual word recognition 

References

  1. Amsel, B. D., Urbach, T. P., & Kutas, M. (2012). Perceptual and motor attribute ratings for 559 object concepts. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 1028–1041.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0215-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Cortese, M. J., Hutchison, K. A., Kessler, B., Loftis, B., … Treiman, R. (2007). The English Lexicon Project. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 445–459.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bennett, S. D. R., Burnett, A. N., Siakaluk, P. D., & Pexman, P. M. (2011). Imageability and body–object interaction ratings for 599 multisyllabic nouns. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 1100–1109.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0117-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bonin, P., Gelin, M., & Bugaiska, A. (2014). Animates are better remembered than inanimates: Further evidence from word and picture stimuli. Memory & Cognition, 42, 370–382.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-013-0368-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Borghi, A. M., & Cimatti, F. (2010). Embodied cognition and beyond: Acting and sensing the body. Neuropsychologia, 48, 763–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boronat, C. B., Buxbaum, L. J., Coslett, H. B., Tang, K., Saffran, E. M., Kimberg, D. Y., & Detre, J. A. (2005). Distinctions between manipulation and function knowledge of objects: Evidence from functional magnetic resonance imaging. Cognitive Brain Research, 23, 361–373.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2004.11.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brodeur, M. B., Dionne-Dostie, E., Montreuil, T., & Lepage, M. (2010). The Bank of Standardized Stimuli (BOSS), a new set of 480 normative photos of objects to be used as visual stimuli in cognitive research. PLoS ONE, 5, e10773.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0010773 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brysbaert, M., & New, B. (2009). Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 977–990.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.977 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Connell, L., & Lynott, D. (2016). Embodied semantic effects in visual word recognition. In Y. Coello & M. Fischer (Eds.), Foundations of embodied cognition: Vol. 2. Conceptual and interactive embodiment (pp. 71–92). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  11. Creem, S. H., & Proffitt, D. R. (2001). Grasping objects by their handles: A necessary interaction between cognition and action. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 218–228.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.27.1.218 Google Scholar
  12. Díez-Álamo, A. M., Díez, E., Alonso, M. Á., Vargas, C. A., & Fernandez, A. (2017). Normative ratings for perceptual and motor attributes of 750 object concepts in Spanish. Behavior Research Methods. Advance online publication.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0970-y
  13. Garcea, F. E., & Mahon, B. Z. (2012). What is in a tool concept? Dissociating manipulation knowledge from function knowledge. Memory & Cognition, 40, 1303–1313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grèzes, J., & Decety, J. (2002). Does visual perception of object afford action? Evidence from a neuroimaging study. Neuropsychologia, 40, 212–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Guérard, K., Lagacé, S., & Brodeur, M. B. (2015). Four types of manipulability ratings and naming latencies for a set of 560 photographs of objects. Behavior Research Methods, 47, 443–470.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-014-0488-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hansen, D., Siakaluk, P. D., & Pexman, P. M. (2012). The influence of print exposure on the body–object interaction effect in visual word recognition. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 113.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00113 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hargreaves, I. S., Leonard, G. A., Pexman, P. M., Pittman, D. J., Siakaluk, P. D., & Goodyear, B. G. (2012). The neural correlates of the body–object interaction effect in semantic processing. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 22.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00022 Google Scholar
  19. Hargreaves, I. S., White, M., Pexman, P. M., Pittman, D., & Goodyear, B. G. (2012). The question shapes the answer: The neural correlates of task differences reveal dynamic semantic processing. Brain and Language, 120, 73–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hauk, O., Johnsrude, I., & Pulvermüller, F. (2004). Somatotopic representation of action words in human motor and premotor cortex. Neuron, 41, 301–307.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0896-6273(03)00838-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Inkster, M., Wellsby, M., Lloyd, E., & Pexman, P. M. (2016). Development of embodied word meanings: Sensorimotor effects in children’s lexical processing. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 317.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00317 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Just, M. A., Cherkassky, V. L., Aryal, S., & Mitchell, T. M. (2010). The neurosemantic theory of concrete noun representations based on the underlying brain codes. PLoS ONE, 5, e8622.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0008622 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kang, S. H. K., Yap, M. J., Tse, C.-S., & Kurby, C. A. (2011). Semantic size does not matter: “Bigger” words are not recognized faster. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 1041–1047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kuperman, V., Stadthagen-Gonzalez, H., & Brysbaert, M. (2012). Age-of acquisition ratings for 30,000 English words. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 978–990.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0210-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lagacé, S., Downing-Doucet, F., & Guérard, K. (2013). Norms for grip agreement for 296 photographs of objects. Behavior Research Methods, 45, 772–781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Madan, C. R. (2014). Manipulability impairs association-memory: Revisiting effects of incidental motor processing on verbal paired-associates. Acta Psychologica, 149, 45–51.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.03.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Madan, C. R. (2017). Motivated cognition: Effects of reward, emotion, and other motivational factors across a variety of cognitive domains. Collabra: Psychology, 3, 24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Madan, C. R., Chen, Y. Y., & Singhal, A. (2016). ERPs differentially reflect automatic and deliberate processing of the functional manipulability of objects. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10, 360.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00360 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Madan, C. R., Ng, A., & Singhal, A. (2018). Prototypical actions with objects are more easily imagined than atypical actions. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 30, 314–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Madan, C. R., & Singhal, A. (2012). Encoding the world around us: Motor-related processing influences verbal memory. Consciousness and Cognition, 21, 1563–1570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Magnié, M. N., Besson, M., Poncet, M., & Dolisi, C. (2003). The Snodgrass and Vanderwart set revisited: Norms for object manipulability and for pictorial ambiguity of objects, chimeric objects, and nonobjects. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 25, 521–560.  https://doi.org/10.1076/jcen.25.4.521.13873 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mahon, B. Z. (2015). The burden of embodied cognition. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69, 172–178.  https://doi.org/10.1037/cep0000060 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Montefinese, M., Ambrosini, E., Fairfield, B., & Mammarella, N. (2013). The “subjective” pupil old/new effect: Is the truth plain to see? International Journal of Psychophysiology, 89, 48–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nairne, J. S. (2010). Adaptive memory: Evolutionary constraints on remembering. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 53, pp. 1–32). Burlington, VT: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  35. Pexman, P. M. (2012). Meaning-level influences on visual word recognition. In J. S. Adelman (Ed.), Visual word recognition: Vol. 2. Meaning and context, individuals and development (pp. 24–43). New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  36. Pexman, P. M., Heard, A., Lloyd, E., & Yap, M. J. (2017). The Calgary Semantic Decision Project: Concrete/abstract decision data for 10,000 English words. Behavior Research Methods, 49, 407–417.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0720-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pexman, P. M., & Yap, M. J. (2018). Individual differences in semantic processing: Insights from the Calgary Semantic Decision Project. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition.  https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000499
  38. Phillips, C. I., Sears, C. R., & Pexman, P. M. (2012). An embodied semantic processing effect on eye gaze during sentence reading. Language and Cognition, 4, 99–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Proverbio, A. M., Del Zotto, M., & Zani, A. (2007). The emergence of semantic categorization in early visual processing: ERP indices of animal vs. artifact recognition. BMC Neuroscience, 8, 24.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2202-8-24 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Salmon, J. P., Matheson, H. E., & McMullen, P. A. (2014). Slow categorization but fast naming for photographs of manipulable objects. Visual Cognition, 22, 141–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Salmon, J. P., McMullen, P. A., & Filliter, J. H. (2010). Norms for two types of manipulability (graspability and functional usage), familiarity, and age of acquisition for 320 photographs of objects. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 82–95.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.1.82 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sereno, S. C., O’Donnell, P. J., Sereno, M. E. (2009). Size matters: Bigger is faster. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1115–1122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Shebani, Z., & Pulvermüller, F. (2013). Moving the hands and feet specifically impairs working memory for arm- and leg-related action words. Cortex, 49, 222–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Siakaluk, P. D., Pexman, P. M., Aguilera, L., Owen, W. J., & Sears, C. R. (2008). Evidence for the activation of sensorimotor information during visual word recognition: The body–object interaction effect. Cognition, 106, 433–443.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2006.12.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Siakaluk, P. D., Pexman, P. M., Sears, C. R., Wilson, K., Locheed, K., & Owen, W. J. (2008). The benefits of sensorimotor knowledge: Body–object interaction facilitates semantic processing. Cognitive Science, 32, 591–605.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03640210802035399 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Taikh, A., Hargreaves, I. S., Yap, M., & Pexman, P. M. (2014). Semantic classification of pictures and words. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68, 1502–1518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Thill, S., & Twomey, K. E. (2016). What’s on the inside counts: A grounded account of concept acquisition and development. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 402.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00402
  48. Tillotson, S. M., Siakaluk, P. D., & Pexman, P. M. (2008). Body–object interaction ratings for 1,618 monosyllabic nouns. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 1075–1078.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.4.1075 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tobia, M. J., & Madan, C. R. (2017). Tool selection and the ventral-dorsal organization of tool-related knowledge. Physiological Reports, 5, e13078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tousignant, C., & Pexman, P. M. (2012). Flexible recruitment of semantic richness: Context modulates body–object interaction effects in lexical–semantic processing. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 53.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00053 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. van Elk, M. (2014). The left inferior parietal lobe represents stored hand-postures for object use and action prediction. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 333.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00333 Google Scholar
  52. Van Havermaet, L. R., & Wurm, L. H. (2014). Semantic effects in word recognition are moderated by body–object interaction. Mental Lexicon, 9, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Van Havermaet, L. R., & Wurm, L. H. (2017). Effects of danger, usefulness, and body–object interaction in picture naming. Mental Lexicon, 12, 51–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2007). A practical solution to the pervasive problem of p values. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 779–804.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194105 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wellsby, M., & Pexman, P. M. (2014). The influence of bodily experience on children’s language processing. Topics in Cognitive Science, 6, 425–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wurm, L. H. (2007). Danger and usefulness: An alternative framework for understanding rapid evaluation effects in perception? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 1218–1225.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193116 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wurm, L. H., & Seaman, S. R. (2008). Semantic effects in naming and perceptual identification, but not in delayed naming: Implications for models and tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 381–398.Google Scholar
  58. Yap, M. J., Pexman, P. M., Wellsby, M., Hargreaves, I. S., & Huff, M. J. (2012). An abundance of riches: Cross-task comparisons of semantic richness effects in visual word recognition. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 72.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00072 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alison Heard
    • 1
  • Christopher R. Madan
    • 2
  • Andrea B. Protzner
    • 1
  • Penny M. Pexman
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Psychology and Hotchkiss Brain InstituteUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada
  2. 2.School of PsychologyUniversity of NottinghamNottinghamUK
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada

Personalised recommendations