FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2289253347> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2289253347 startingPage "209" @default.
• W2289253347 abstract "concepts directly, we have found that three mechanisms are central (1) event simulations that frame focal concepts (e.g., Fillmore, 1985; Langacker, 1986), (2) perceptual symbols from introspection, (3) propositional construal. Our conjecture is that any abstract concept can be represented directly using these three mechanisms. 2. Empirical Research The primary goal of our empirical work has been to test the assumption that perceptual simulation underlies conceptual processing. Whereas standard views assume that people process concepts using amodal symbol systems such as feature lists, frames, and semantic networks, we explore the possibility that people process concepts by simulating their referents perceptually. Although these simulations may at times be conscious, they may often proceed unconsciously (1.2). Note that our empirical efforts thus far do not constitute a full test of our theory. Indeed, most aspects of the theory remain untested. Instead, our research has only explored the theory's core assumption, namely, that perceptual simulation lies at the heart of conceptual processing. To explore this issue, we have subjects perform standard conceptual tasks, such as feature listing and property verification. In the critical conditions, subjects do not see pictorial stimuli, nor are they asked to perform perceptual processing, such as imagery. Instead, subjects only receive linguistic stimuli and are asked in as neutral a manner as possible to perform conceptual processing. Of interest is whether subjects perform perceptual simulation spontaneously. 2.1. Instructional equivalence and perceptual work Barsalou, Solomon, and Wu 6 Across several lines of experimentation, we have sought two general forms of evidence for perceptual simulation: instructional equivalence and perceptual work. To examine instructional equivalence, each experiment includes neutral and imagery subjects. As just described, neutral subjects receive standard task instructions with nothing said about images. For feature listing, subjects are asked to list the properties typically true of a concept. For property verification, subjects are asked to verify whether a concept has a property. In contrast, imagery subjects are asked to perform these conceptual tasks using images. For feature listing, subjects are asked to construct images for the referents of concepts and then describe these images. For property verification, subjects are asked to construct an image of a concept and then verify the truth or falsity of a property by attempting to find it on the image. To assess instructional equivalence, we compare detailed performance profiles of the neutral and imagery subjects. We can assume that imagery subjects use images as instructed, given that much previous work indicates that subjects adopt images when asked to do so (for reviews, see Finke, 1989, and Kosslyn, 1980). As discussed shortly, we also have independent verification from perceptual work that imagery subjects use images. Thus, the key issue is how neutral subjects compare to imagery subjects: If neutral subjects use images during perceptual simulation, then their detailed performance profiles should be essentially the same as those for imagery subjects. If both groups perform the task similarly, it is likely that neutral subjects use images, assuming that imagery subjects use them. On the other hand, if neutral subjects use amodal representations such as feature lists, frames, or semantic nets, then the detailed performance profiles of the two groups should differ considerably.1 Turning to perceptual work, we manipulate a variable in each experiment that is known to affect perceptual processing, such as the visibility, size, or position of features. In both perception and imagery, it is well known that these variables affect performance (Finke, 1989; Kosslyn, 1980; Shepard & Cooper, 1982). If neutral subjects in our conceptual tasks perform perceptual simulation, then we should see effects of these variables on their performance. The more perceptual work a subject has to do, the more difficult processing should be. In contrast, the amodal view predicts no such effects because perceptual simulation is irrelevant. Perceptual work provides an independent check on whether imagery subjects Barsalou, Solomon, and Wu 7 use images as instructed. If they do, then perceptual work variables should affect their performance. To the extent that perceptual work variables affect neutral and imagery subjects similarly, instructional equivalence is established" @default.
• W2289253347 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2289253347 creator A5007242840 @default.
• W2289253347 creator A5043125095 @default.
• W2289253347 creator A5078508282 @default.
• W2289253347 date "1999-10-15" @default.
• W2289253347 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W2289253347 title "Perceptual simulation in conceptual tasks" @default.
• W2289253347 cites W1496919469 @default.
• W2289253347 cites W1511068194 @default.
• W2289253347 cites W1517744545 @default.
• W2289253347 cites W1550366119 @default.
• W2289253347 cites W1569430537 @default.
• W2289253347 cites W1571895365 @default.
• W2289253347 cites W1594646173 @default.
• W2289253347 cites W1608547586 @default.
• W2289253347 cites W1801951652 @default.
• W2289253347 cites W1922022314 @default.
• W2289253347 cites W1968404495 @default.
• W2289253347 cites W1976852883 @default.
• W2289253347 cites W1986010321 @default.
• W2289253347 cites W1990082671 @default.
• W2289253347 cites W1992764401 @default.
• W2289253347 cites W1993310566 @default.
• W2289253347 cites W2003103143 @default.
• W2289253347 cites W2005653314 @default.
• W2289253347 cites W2029182003 @default.
• W2289253347 cites W2043220715 @default.
• W2289253347 cites W2047317708 @default.
• W2289253347 cites W2052417512 @default.
• W2289253347 cites W2055460448 @default.
• W2289253347 cites W2056239856 @default.
• W2289253347 cites W2060642394 @default.
• W2289253347 cites W2081981374 @default.
• W2289253347 cites W2083463681 @default.
• W2289253347 cites W2087305065 @default.
• W2289253347 cites W2089412241 @default.
• W2289253347 cites W2107215887 @default.
• W2289253347 cites W2111786375 @default.
• W2289253347 cites W2133395868 @default.
• W2289253347 cites W2139252049 @default.
• W2289253347 cites W2150375089 @default.
• W2289253347 cites W2159875608 @default.
• W2289253347 cites W2292486230 @default.
• W2289253347 cites W2293593774 @default.
• W2289253347 cites W2341997924 @default.
• W2289253347 cites W2536238420 @default.
• W2289253347 cites W2613294978 @default.
• W2289253347 cites W50643961 @default.
• W2289253347 cites W8715909 @default.
• W2289253347 cites W2056613695 @default.
• W2289253347 hasPublicationYear "1999" @default.
• W2289253347 type Work @default.
• W2289253347 sameAs 2289253347 @default.
• W2289253347 citedByCount "32" @default.
• W2289253347 countsByYear W22892533472012 @default.
• W2289253347 countsByYear W22892533472013 @default.
• W2289253347 countsByYear W22892533472014 @default.
• W2289253347 countsByYear W22892533472015 @default.
• W2289253347 countsByYear W22892533472018 @default.
• W2289253347 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2289253347 hasAuthorship W2289253347A5007242840 @default.
• W2289253347 hasAuthorship W2289253347A5043125095 @default.
• W2289253347 hasAuthorship W2289253347A5078508282 @default.
• W2289253347 hasConcept C129671850 @default.
• W2289253347 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2289253347 hasConcept C169760540 @default.
• W2289253347 hasConcept C169900460 @default.
• W2289253347 hasConcept C180747234 @default.
• W2289253347 hasConcept C188147891 @default.
• W2289253347 hasConcept C26326936 @default.
• W2289253347 hasConcept C26760741 @default.
• W2289253347 hasConcept C33002781 @default.
• W2289253347 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2289253347 hasConcept C77805123 @default.
• W2289253347 hasConceptScore W2289253347C129671850 @default.
• W2289253347 hasConceptScore W2289253347C15744967 @default.
• W2289253347 hasConceptScore W2289253347C169760540 @default.
• W2289253347 hasConceptScore W2289253347C169900460 @default.
• W2289253347 hasConceptScore W2289253347C180747234 @default.
• W2289253347 hasConceptScore W2289253347C188147891 @default.
• W2289253347 hasConceptScore W2289253347C26326936 @default.
• W2289253347 hasConceptScore W2289253347C26760741 @default.
• W2289253347 hasConceptScore W2289253347C33002781 @default.
• W2289253347 hasConceptScore W2289253347C41008148 @default.
• W2289253347 hasConceptScore W2289253347C77805123 @default.
• W2289253347 hasLocation W22892533471 @default.
• W2289253347 hasOpenAccess W2289253347 @default.
• W2289253347 hasPrimaryLocation W22892533471 @default.
• W2289253347 hasRelatedWork W1933657216 @default.
• W2289253347 hasRelatedWork W1977308918 @default.
• W2289253347 hasRelatedWork W1983578042 @default.
• W2289253347 hasRelatedWork W1986856036 @default.
• W2289253347 hasRelatedWork W2000255081 @default.
• W2289253347 hasRelatedWork W2023015865 @default.
• W2289253347 hasRelatedWork W2059799772 @default.
• W2289253347 hasRelatedWork W2081981374 @default.
• W2289253347 hasRelatedWork W2115316474 @default.
• W2289253347 hasRelatedWork W2117352571 @default.

• next