Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The role of visual representations during language processing remains unclear: They could be activated as a necessary part of the comprehension process, or they could be less crucial and influence performance in a task-dependent manner. In the present experiments, participants read sentences about an object. The sentences implied that the object had a specific shape or orientation. They then either named a picture of that object (Experiments 1 and 3) or decided whether the object had been mentioned in the sentence (Experiment 2). Orientation information did not reliably influence performance in any of the experiments. Shape representations influenced performance most strongly when participants were asked to compare a sentence with a picture or when they were explicitly asked to use mental imagery while reading the sentences. Thus, in contrast to previous claims, implied visual information often does not contribute substantially to the comprehension process during normal reading.

Keywords

psycholinguistics language

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Baayen

R. H.

Davidson

D. J.

Bates

D. M.

(2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390–412.

Barsalou

L. W.

(1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 22, 577–609.

Biederman

Cooper

E. E.

(1991). Evidence for complete translational and reflectional invariance in visual object priming. Perception, 20, 585–593.

Connell

(2007). Representing object colour in language comprehension. Cognition, 102, 476–485.

Connell

Lynott

(2009). Is a bear white in the woods? Parallel representation of implied object color during language comprehension. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 573–577.

Dahan

Tanenhaus

M. K.

(2005). Looking at the rope when looking for the snake: Conceptually mediated eye movements during spoken-word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 453–459.

Huettig

Altmann

G. T. M.

(2007). Visual-shape competition during language-mediated attention is based on lexical input and not modulated by contextual appropriateness. Visual Cognition, 15, 985–1018.

Huettig

McQueen

J. M.

(2011). The nature of the visual environment induces implicit biases during language-mediated visual search. Memory & Cognition, 39, 1068–1084.

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.

10.

Keller

Gunasekharan

Mayo

Corley

(2009). Timing accuracy of Web experiments: A case study using the WebExp software package. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1–12.

11.

Kintsch

(2008). Symbol systems and perceptual representations. In De Vega

Glenberg

Graesser

(Eds.), Symbols and embodiment (pp. 145–164). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

12.

Kosslyn

S. M.

(1994). Image and brain: The resolution of the imagery debate. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

13.

Mahon

B. Z.

Caramazza

(2008). A critical look at the embodied cognition hypothesis and a new proposal for grounding conceptual content. Journal of Physiology Paris, 102, 59–70.

14.

Masson

M. E. J.

(2011). A tutorial on a practical Bayesian alternative to null-hypothesis significance testing. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 679–690.

15.

Pecher

van Dantzig

Schifferstein

H. N. J.

(2009). Concepts are not represented by imagery. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 914–919.

16.

Pecher

van Dantzig

Zwaan

R. A.

Zeelenberg

(2009). Language comprehenders retain implied shape and orientation of objects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1108–1114.

17.

Pecher

Zeelenberg

Barsalou

L. W.

(2003). Verifying different-modality properties for concepts produces switching costs. Psychological Science, 14, 119–124.

18.

Pecher

Zeelenberg

Raaijmakers

J. G. W.

(1998). Does pizza prime coin? Perceptual priming in lexical decision and pronunciation. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 401–418.

19.

Pulvermüller

(2005). Brain mechanisms linking language and action. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 6, 576–582.

20.

Pylyshyn

Z. W.

(1981). The imagery debate: Analogue media versus tacit knowledge. Psychological Review, 88, 16–45.

21.

R Development Core Team. (2009). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.

22.

Raaijmakers

J. G. W.

Schrijnemakers

J. M. C.

Gremmen

(1999). How to deal with “the language-as-fixed-effect fallacy”: Common misconceptions and alternative solutions. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 416–426.

23.

Raftery

A. E.

(1995). Bayesian model selection in social research. In Marsden

P. V.

(Ed.), Sociological methodology 1995 (pp. 111–196). Cambridge, England: Blackwell.

24.

Richardson

D. C.

Spivey

M. J.

Barsalou

L. W.

McRae

(2003). Spatial representations activated during real-time comprehension of verbs. Cognitive Science, 27, 767–780.

25.

Rommers

Meyer

A. S.

Praamstra

Huettig

(2013). The contents of predictions in sentence comprehension: Activation of the shape of objects before they are referred to. Neuropsychologia, 51, 437–447.

26.

Schreuder

Flores d’Arcais

G. B.

Glazenborg

(1984). Effects of perceptual and conceptual similarity in semantic priming. Psychological Research, 45, 339–354.

27.

Sereno

S. C.

O’Donnell

P. J.

Sereno

M. E.

(2009). Size matters: Bigger is faster. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1115–1122.

28.

Solomon

K. O.

Barsalou

L. W.

(2004). Perceptual simulation in property verification. Memory & Cognition, 32, 244–259.

29.

Stanfield

R. A.

(2000). The effects of verbal context on picture recognition. Unpublished master’s thesis, Florida State University, Tallahassee.

30.

Stanfield

R. A.

Zwaan

R. A.

(2001). The effect of implied orientation derived from verbal context on picture recognition. Psychological Science, 12, 153–156.

31.

van Dam

W. O.

van Dijk

Bekkering

Rueschemeyer

S.-A.

(2012). Flexibility in embodied lexical-semantic representations. Human Brain Mapping, 33, 2322–2333.

32.

Wagenmakers

E.-J.

(2007). A practical solution to the pervasive problems of p values. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 779–804.

33.

Wassenburg

S. I.

Zwaan

R. A.

(2010). Readers routinely represent implied object rotation: The role of visual experience. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 1665–1670.

34.

Zwaan

R. A.

(2004). The immersed experiencer: Toward an embodied theory of language comprehension. In Ross

B. H.

(Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 35–62). New York, NY: Academic Press.

35.

Zwaan

R. A.

Pecher

(2012). Revisiting mental simulation in language comprehension: Six replication attempts. PLoS ONE, 7(12), e51382. Retrieved from http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0051382

36.

Zwaan

R. A.

Stanfield

R. A.

Yaxley

R. H.

(2002). Language comprehenders mentally represent the shapes of objects. Psychological Science, 13, 168–171.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.43 MB

Object Shape and Orientation Do Not Routinely Influence Performance During Language Processing

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material