Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T07:32:29.737Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An embodied semantic processing effect on eye gaze during sentence reading

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2014

Catherine I. Phillips ,
Christopher R. Sears  and
Penny M. Pexman
Catherine I. Phillips
Affiliation:
University of Calgary
Christopher R. Sears
Affiliation:
University of Calgary
Penny M. Pexman*
Affiliation:
University of Calgary
*
Correspondence addresses: Penny M. Pexman, Psychology Department, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N 1N4, Canada. E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The present research examines the effects of body-object interaction (BOI) on eye gaze behaviour in a reading task. BOI measures perceptions of the ease with which a human body can physically interact with a word's referent. A set of high BOI words (e.g. cat) and a set of low BOI words (e.g. sun) were selected, matched on imageability and concreteness (as well as other lexical and semantic variables). Facilitatory BOI effects were observed: gaze durations and total fixation durations were shorter for high BOI words, and participants made fewer regressions to high BOI words. The results provide evidence of a BOI effect on non-manual responses and in a situation that taps normal reading processes. We discuss how the results (a) suggest that stored motor information (as measured by BOI ratings) is relevant to lexical semantics, and (b) are consistent with an embodied view of cognition (Wilson 2002).

Keywords

embodied cognitionsensorimotor knowledgebody-object interactioneyegazesentence processing
Type
Research Article
Information
Language and Cognition , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , June 2012 , pp. 99 - 114
Copyright
Copyright © UK Cognitive Linguistics Association 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Cortese, M. J., Hutchinson, K. I., Kessler, B., Loftis, B., Neely, J. H., Nelson, D. L., Simpson, G. B. & Treiman, R.. 2007. The English lexicon project. Behavior Research Methods 39. 445–459.Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. W. 1999. Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22. 577–660.Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. W. 2003a. Abstraction in perceptual symbol systems. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London: Biological Sciences 358. 1177–1187.Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. W. 2003b. Situated simulation in the human conceptual system. Language and Cognitive Processes 18. 513–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barsalou, L. W., Simmons, K., Barbey, A. K. & Wilson, C. D.. 2003. Grounding conceptual knowledge in modality-specific systems. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7. 84–91.Google Scholar
Clark, A. 1997. Being there: Putting brain, body, and the world together again. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Davis, C. J. 2005. N-Watch: A program for deriving neighborhood size and other pshycolinguistic statistics. Behavior Research Methods 37. 65–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibbs, R. W. 2006. Embodiment and cognitive science. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Glenberg, A. M. & Kaschak, M. P.. 2002. Grounding language in action. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 9. 558–565.Google Scholar
Helbig, H. B., Graf, M. & Kiefer, M.. 2006. The role of action representations in visual object recognition. Experimental Brain Research 174. 221–228.Google Scholar
Helbig, H. B., Steinwender, J., Graf, M. & Kiefer, M.. 2010. Action observation can prime visual object recognition. Experimental Brain Research 200. 251–258.Google Scholar
Hino, Y. & Lupker, S. J.. 1996. Effects of polysemy in lexical decision and naming: An alternative to lexical access accounts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 22. 1331–1356.Google Scholar
Hino, Y., Lupker, S. J. & Pexman, P. M.. 2002. Ambiguity and synonymy effects in lexical decision, naming, and semantic categorization tasks: Interactions between orthography, phonology, and semantics. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 28. 686–713.Google Scholar
Hoenig, K., Muller, C., Herrnberger, B., Sim, E.-J., Spitzer, M., Ehret, G. & Kiefer, M.. 2011. Neuroplasticity of semantic representations for musical instruments in professional musicians. Neuro-Image 56. 1714–1725.Google Scholar
Juhasz, B. J. & Rayner, K.. 2003. Investigating the effects of a set of intercorrelated variables on eye fixation durations in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 29. 1312–1318.Google Scholar
Kiefer, M. & Pulvermüller, F.. In press. Conceptual representations in mind and brain: Theoretical developments, current evidence and future directions. Cortex.Google Scholar
Kiefer, M., Sim, E.-J., Helbig, H. B. & Graf, M.. 2011. Tracking the time course of action priming on object recognition: Evidence for fast and slow influences of action on perception. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 23. 1864–1874.Google Scholar
Kiefer, M., Sim, E.-J., Liebich, S., Hauk, O. & Tanaka, J.. 2007. Experience-dependent plasticity of conceptual representations in human sensory-motor areas. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 19. 525–542.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kucera, H. & Francis, W.. 1967. Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M.. 1999. Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Myung, J., Blumstein, S. E. & Sedivy, J. C.. 2006. Playing on the typewriter, typing on the piano: Manipulation knowledge of objects. Cognition 98. 223–243.Google Scholar
Pecher, D. & Zwaan, R. A.. 2005. Introduction to grounding cognition. In Pecher, D. & Zwaan, R. A. (eds.), Grounding cognition: The role of perception and action in memory, language and thinking, 1–7. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pexman, P. M., Hargreaves, I. S., Siakaluk, P. D., Bodner, G. E. & Pope, J.. 2008. There are many ways to be rich: Effects of three measures of semantic richness on visual word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 15. 161–167.Google Scholar
Pollatsek, A., Juhasz, B. J., Reichle, E. D., Machacek, D. & Rayner, K.. 2008. Immediate and delayed effects of word frequency and word length on eye movements in reading: A reversed delayed effect of word length. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 34. 726–750.Google Scholar
Pollatsek, A., Perea, M. & Binder, K.. 1999. The effects of “neighborhood size” in reading and lexical decision. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 25. 1142–1158.Google Scholar
Pollatsek, A., Reichle, E. D. & Rayner, K.. 2006. Tests of the E-Z Reader model: Exploring the interface between cognition and eye-movement control. Cognitive Psychology 52. 1–56.Google Scholar
Pylyshyn, Z. 1984. Computation and cognition: Towards a foundation for cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rayner, K. 1998. Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin 124. 371–422.Google Scholar
Reichle, E. D., Warren, T. & McConnell, K.. 2009. Using E-Z Reader to model the effects of higher level language processing on eye movements during reading. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 16. 1–21.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Weisberg, J., van Turennout, M. & Martin, A.. 2007. A neural system for learning about object function. Cerebral Cortex 17. 513–521.Google Scholar
Wellsby, M., Siakaluk, P. D., Owen, W. J. & Pexman, P. M.. 2011. Embodied semantic processing: The body-object interaction effect in a non-manual task. Language and Cognition 3. 1–14.Google Scholar
Wilson, M. 1988. The MRC psycholinguistic database: Machine readable dictionary, Version 2. Behavioural Research Methods, Instruments and Computers 20. 6–11.Google Scholar
Wilson, M. 2002. Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 9. 625–636.Google Scholar
Yap, M. J., Tan, S. E., Pexman, P. M. & Hargreaves, I. S.. 2011. Is more always better? Effects of semantic richness on lexical decision, speeded pronunciation, and semantic classification. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 18. 742–750.Google Scholar
Zeno, S. M., Ivens, S. H., Millard, R. T. & Duvvuri, R.. 1995. The educator's word frequency guide. United States of America: Touchstone Applied Science Associates, Inc.Google Scholar