According to perceptual symbol systems, sensorimotor simulations underlie the representation of concepts. It follows that sensorimotor phenomena should arise in conceptual processing. Previous studies have shown that switching from one modality to another during perceptual processing incurs a processing cost. If perceptual simulation underlies conceptual processing, then verifying the properties of concepts should exhibit a switching cost as well. For example, verifying a property in the auditory modality (e.g., BLENDER-loud) should be slower after verifying a property in a different modality (e.g., CRANBERRIES-tart) than after verifying a property in the same modality (e.g., LEAVES-rustling). Only words were presented to subjects, and there were no instructions to use imagery. Nevertheless, switching modalities incurred a cost, analogous to the cost of switching modalities in perception. A second experiment showed that this effect was not due to associative priming between properties in the same modality. These results support the hypothesis that perceptual simulation underlies conceptual processing.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BarsalouL.W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577–660.
2.
BarsalouL.W. (in press). Situated simulation in the human conceptual system. Language and Cognitive Processes.
3.
BentinS.FeldmanL.B. (1990). The contribution of morphological and semantic relatedness to repetition priming at short and long lags: Evidence from Hebrew. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 42A, 693–711.
4.
DannenbringG.L.BriandK. (1982). Semantic priming and the word repetition effect in a lexical decision task. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 36, 435–444.
5.
FodorJ.A. (1975). The language of thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
6.
GlenbergA.M. (1997). What memory is for. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 20, 1–55.
7.
JoordensS.BesnerD. (1992). Priming effects that span an intervening unrelated word: Implications for models of memory representation and retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 483–491.
8.
KlatzkyR.L.PellegrinoJ.W.McCloskeyB.P.DohertyS. (1989). Can you squeeze a tomato? The role of motor representations in semantic sensibility judgements. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 56–77.
9.
MartinA. (2001). Functional neuroimaging of semantic memory. In: CabezaR.KingstoneA.(Eds.), Handbook of functional neuroimaging of cognition(pp. 153–186.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
10.
MartinA.ChaoL. (2001). Semantic memory and the brain: Structure and process. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 11, 194–201.
11.
MartinA.UngerleiderL.G.HaxbyJ.V. (2000). Category-specificity and the brain: The sensory-motor model of semantic representations of objects. In: GazzanigaM.S.(Ed.), The new cognitive neurosciences(2nd ed., pp .1023–1036.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
12.
MassonM.E.J. (1995). A distributed memory model of semantic priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology : Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 3–23.
13.
McNamaraT.P. (1992). Theories of priming : I. Associative distance and lag. Journal of Experimental Psychology : Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 1173–1190.
14.
McRaeK.CreeG.S. (in press). Factors underlying category-specific deficits. In: FordeE.M.E.HumphreysG.W.(Eds.), Category specificity in mind and brain. London: Psychology Press.
15.
NelsonD.L.McEvoyC.L.SchreiberT.A. (1999). The University of South Florida word association, rhyme and word fragment norms. Retrieved June 2000 fromhttp://www.web.usf.edu/FreeAssociation
16.
PecherD.HamannS.B.SimmonsW.K.ZeelenbergR.BarsalouL.W. (2002). fMRI evidence for modality-specific conceptual processing in six modalities. Unpublished manuscript, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
17.
Pulvermq/4llerF. (1999). Words in the brain's language. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 253–336.
18.
PylyshynZ.W. (1984). Computation and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
19.
RaaijmakersJ.G.W.SchrijnemakersJ.M.C.GremmenF. (1999). How to deal with the “language-as-a-fixed-effect fallacy”: Common misconceptions and alternative solutions. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 416–426.
20.
SimmonsK.BarsalouL.W. (in press). The similarity-in-topography principle: Reconciling theories of conceptual deficits. Cognitive Neuropsychology.
SolomonK.O.BarsalouL.W. (2002). Perceptual simulation in property verification. Manuscript submitted for publication.
23.
SpenceC.DriverJ. (1998). Auditory and audiovisual inhibition of return. Perception & Psychophysics, 60, 125–139.
24.
SpenceC.NichollsM.E.R.DriverJ. (2000). The cost of expecting events in the wrong sensory modality. Perception & Psychophysics, 63, 330–336.
25.
SpiveyM.TylerM.RichardsonD.YoungE. (2000). Eye movements during comprehension of spoken scene descriptions. In: GleitmanL.R.JoshiA.K.(Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society(pp. 487–492.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
26.
StanfieldR.A.ZwaanR.A. (2001). The effect of implied orientation derived from verbal context on picture recognition. Psychological Science, 12, 153–156.
27.
Wiemer-HastingsK.KrugJ.XuX. (2001). Imagery, context availability, contextual constraint, and abstractness. In: MooreJ.D.StenningK.(Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society(pp. 1134–1139.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
28.
WuL.BarsalouL.W. (2002). Perceptual simulation in property verification. Manuscript submitted for publication.
29.
ZwaanR.A.StanfieldR.A.YaxleyR.H. (2002). Language comprehenders mentally represent the shapes of objects. Psychological Science, 13, 168–171.
