FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2407670251> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2407670251 abstract "Effector specific response activation during word processing Daniela K. Ahlberg (daniela.ahlberg@uni-tuebingen.de) Department of Psychology, University of Tubingen, Schleichstr. 4, 72076 Tubingen, Germany Carolin Dudschig (carolin.dudschig@uni-tuebingen.de) Department of Psychology, University of Tubingen, Schleichstr. 4, 72076 Tubingen, Germany Barbara Kaup (barbara.kaup@uni-tuebingen.de) Department of Psychology, University of Tubingen, Schleichstr. 4, 72076 Tubingen, Germany Abstract Theories of embodied cognition suggest that sensorimotor processes are involved in language comprehension processes. Recent studies suggested that sentences referring to actions that involve a typical effector (e.g. “He kicks the ball”) can systematically activate motor cortex areas that are involved in performing such actions (Hauk, Johnsrude & Pulvermuller, 2004). In behavioral studies, there is mixed evidence regarding the effects of effector-specific words on corresponding actions. In the current study, we investigated the effect of four word groups on subsequent motor responses involving the hand or the foot. The four word groups were (a) action verbs (e.g., kick, grasp) (b) nouns containing the lexeme ‘hand’ or ‘foot’ (e.g., handball, football) (c) nouns referring to objects that are typically manipulated by hand or foot (e.g., cup, shoe), and (d) as control items, nouns that have a spatial association with the upper or lower space (e.g., eagle, root) and which are known to activate locational information in paradigms where no reading is required. We found strong effector-specific compatibility effects revealing a facilitation effect in all noun-groups. Surprisingly, this effect was not present for the action-verbs. Implications of these findings will be discussed. Keywords: Embodied Cognition; Language Comprehension; Effectors Introduction Many of our daily activities involve language. We speak, we listen to people speaking, we read or we write at various occasions every day. However, in research on language processing there is still no agreement on theoretical assumptions concerning the processes and representations that are involved in language processing. For a long time, the propositional, amodal theory of language comprehension was the predominant view (Kintsch & van Dijk, 1978; Kintsch 1988; McKoon & Ratcliff, 1992). According to this view, the result of language comprehension is a meaning representation in an amodal propositional format that captures the content of the linguistic input and integrates it with the reader’s background knowledge which is also available in this format. Typically, embodied models of language understanding are viewed as the counterpart to these amodal theories of language processing (Barsalou, 1999). The main assumption of this approach is that language processing is closely connected to other cognitive systems, such as perception and action. There is a tremendous number of empirical studies providing evidence for the embodied view of language comprehension (for an overview, see Jirak, Menz, Buccino, Borghi & Binkofski, 2010). However, in many cases the individual results are somewhat inconsistent, and cannot be integrated into a coherent processing model. As a result, important theoretical questions concerning the embodied view are still unsolved, as for instance the question whether all kinds of sensorimotor activations are functionally relevant for comprehension or in contrast sometimes constitute a kind of epi-phenomenon. Before turning to these important issues, research first needs to investigate in more detail the individual phenomena, with the goal of arriving at more definite conclusions concerning the boundary conditions for the observed effects. In the present study, we aim to address the question, whether motor activation occurs in a specific manner when processing action related verbs (e.g., kick, grasp), or nouns referring to objects that are typically manipulated with the hand or the foot (e.g., brush, shoe). Evidence for an embodied view of language understanding has been reported in behavioral and neuroimaging paradigms. In the behavioral domain, observed interactions between language and visual- processing, and between language and motor processing are typically taken as strong evidence for an embodied model of language comprehension. For example, Zwaan, Stanfield and Yaxley (2002) reported that sentence processing can activate very specific visual representations. In their study, participants had to process sentences such as “The girl saw the egg in the frying pan” and subsequently respond to pictures of the target entity (egg). The pictures could either match the shape of the entity described in the sentences (e.g., a fried egg sunny side up) or mismatch the shape (e.g., an unbroken egg). Responses were faster in the matching than in the mismatching conditions, suggesting that readers had available a visual representation of an egg in the frying pan when reading the corresponding sentence. Evidence for the reactivation of motor representations during language comprehension was reported by Glenberg" @default.
• W2407670251 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2407670251 creator A5000387505 @default.
• W2407670251 creator A5077765751 @default.
• W2407670251 creator A5079026374 @default.
• W2407670251 date "2013-01-01" @default.
• W2407670251 modified "2023-09-28" @default.
• W2407670251 title "Effector specific response activation during word processing" @default.
• W2407670251 cites W1543588706 @default.
• W2407670251 cites W1969025743 @default.
• W2407670251 cites W1970838624 @default.
• W2407670251 cites W1975909437 @default.
• W2407670251 cites W1977236022 @default.
• W2407670251 cites W1979950088 @default.
• W2407670251 cites W1998208785 @default.
• W2407670251 cites W2000998192 @default.
• W2407670251 cites W2001553306 @default.
• W2407670251 cites W2034947045 @default.
• W2407670251 cites W2039107287 @default.
• W2407670251 cites W2056805596 @default.
• W2407670251 cites W2060631517 @default.
• W2407670251 cites W2084015864 @default.
• W2407670251 cites W2092308848 @default.
• W2407670251 cites W2110274942 @default.
• W2407670251 cites W2120357670 @default.
• W2407670251 cites W2130979824 @default.
• W2407670251 cites W2148848230 @default.
• W2407670251 cites W2150375089 @default.
• W2407670251 cites W2150704745 @default.
• W2407670251 cites W2158575718 @default.
• W2407670251 cites W2167293745 @default.
• W2407670251 cites W2339857540 @default.
• W2407670251 hasPublicationYear "2013" @default.
• W2407670251 type Work @default.
• W2407670251 sameAs 2407670251 @default.
• W2407670251 citedByCount "2" @default.
• W2407670251 countsByYear W24076702512015 @default.
• W2407670251 countsByYear W24076702512018 @default.
• W2407670251 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2407670251 hasAuthorship W2407670251A5000387505 @default.
• W2407670251 hasAuthorship W2407670251A5077765751 @default.
• W2407670251 hasAuthorship W2407670251A5079026374 @default.
• W2407670251 hasConcept C100609095 @default.
• W2407670251 hasConcept C121934690 @default.
• W2407670251 hasConcept C137813230 @default.
• W2407670251 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
• W2407670251 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2407670251 hasConcept C169760540 @default.
• W2407670251 hasConcept C169900460 @default.
• W2407670251 hasConcept C180747234 @default.
• W2407670251 hasConcept C188147891 @default.
• W2407670251 hasConcept C204321447 @default.
• W2407670251 hasConcept C2776397901 @default.
• W2407670251 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2407670251 hasConcept C46312422 @default.
• W2407670251 hasConceptScore W2407670251C100609095 @default.
• W2407670251 hasConceptScore W2407670251C121934690 @default.
• W2407670251 hasConceptScore W2407670251C137813230 @default.
• W2407670251 hasConceptScore W2407670251C154945302 @default.
• W2407670251 hasConceptScore W2407670251C15744967 @default.
• W2407670251 hasConceptScore W2407670251C169760540 @default.
• W2407670251 hasConceptScore W2407670251C169900460 @default.
• W2407670251 hasConceptScore W2407670251C180747234 @default.
• W2407670251 hasConceptScore W2407670251C188147891 @default.
• W2407670251 hasConceptScore W2407670251C204321447 @default.
• W2407670251 hasConceptScore W2407670251C2776397901 @default.
• W2407670251 hasConceptScore W2407670251C41008148 @default.
• W2407670251 hasConceptScore W2407670251C46312422 @default.
• W2407670251 hasIssue "35" @default.
• W2407670251 hasLocation W24076702511 @default.
• W2407670251 hasOpenAccess W2407670251 @default.
• W2407670251 hasPrimaryLocation W24076702511 @default.
• W2407670251 hasRelatedWork W1975909437 @default.
• W2407670251 hasRelatedWork W2035034597 @default.
• W2407670251 hasRelatedWork W2150375089 @default.
• W2407670251 hasVolume "35" @default.
• W2407670251 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2407670251 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2407670251 magId "2407670251" @default.
• W2407670251 workType "article" @default.