scholarly journals Flexible recruitment of semantic richness: context modulates body-object interaction effects in lexical-semantic processing

2012 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cody Tousignant ◽  
Penny M. Pexman
Keyword(s):  
Semantic Processing ◽  
Interaction Effects ◽  
Lexical Semantic ◽  
Semantic Richness ◽  
Object Interaction

scholarly journals Getting a Grip on Sensorimotor Effects in Lexical-Semantic Processing

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alison Heard ◽  
Christopher R Madan ◽  
Andrea Protzner ◽  
Penny M. Pexman
Keyword(s):  
Lexical Decision ◽  
Human Body ◽  
Semantic Processing ◽  
Decision Task ◽  
Semantic Categorization ◽  
Lexical Semantic ◽  
Object Interaction ◽  
Sensorimotor Information ◽  
Theoretical Import

One of the strategies that researchers have used to investigate the role of sensorimotor information in lexical-semantic processing is to examine effects of words’ rated body-object interaction (BOI; the ease with which the human body can interact with a word’s referent). Processing tends to be facilitated for words with high BOI compared to words with low BOI, across a wide variety of tasks. Such effects have been referenced in debates over the nature of semantic representations, but their theoretical import has been limited by the fact that BOI is a fairly coarse measure of sensorimotor experience with words’ referents. In the present study we collected ratings for 621 words on seven semantic dimensions (graspability, ease of pantomime, number of actions, animacy, size, danger, and usefulness) in order to investigate which attributes are most strongly related to BOI ratings, and to lexical-semantic processing. BOI ratings were obtained from previous norming studies (Bennett, Burnett, Siakaluk, & Pexman, 2011; Tillotson, Siakaluk, & Pexman, 2008) and measures of lexical-semantic processing were obtained from previous behavioural megastudies involving the semantic categorization task (concrete/abstract decision; Pexman, Heard, Lloyd, & Yap, 2017) and the lexical decision task (Balota et al., 2007). Results showed that the motor dimension of graspability, ease of pantomime, and number of actions were all related to BOI and that these dimensions together explained more variance in semantic processing than did BOI ratings alone. These ratings will be useful for researchers who wish to study how different kinds of bodily interactions influence lexical-semantic processing and cognition.

scholarly journals How Does Meaning Come to Mind? Four Broad Principles of Semantic Processing

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Penny M. Pexman
Keyword(s):  
Semantic Processing ◽  
Semantic Representation ◽  
Sound Symbolism ◽  
Abstract Concepts ◽  
Lexical Semantic ◽  
Semantic Richness ◽  
The Past ◽  
The Many ◽  
The Relationship

When we see or hear a word, we can rapidly bring its meaning to mind. The process that underlies this ability is quite complex. Over the past two decades, considerable progress has been made towards understanding this process. In this paper, I offer four broad principles of semantic processing derived from lexical-semantic research. The first principle is that the relationship between form and meaning is not so arbitrary and I explore that by describing efforts to understand the relationship between form and meaning, highlighting advances from my own lab on the topics of sound symbolism and iconicity. The second principle is that more is better and I summarize previous research on semantic richness effects, and how those effects reveal the nature of semantic representation. The third principle is the many and various properties of abstract concepts. I point to abstract meaning as a challenge for some theories of semantic representation. In response to that challenge, I outline what has been learned about how those meanings are acquired and represented. The fourth principle is that experience matters, and I summarize research on the dynamic and experience-driven nature of semantic processing, detailing ways in which processing is modified by both immediate and long-term context. Finally, I describe some next steps for lexical-semantic research.

Embodied semantic processing: The body-object interaction effect in a non-manual task

2011 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michele Wellsby ◽  
Paul D. Siakaluk ◽  
William J. Owen ◽  
Penny M. Pexman
Keyword(s):  
Semantic Processing ◽  
The Body ◽  
Button Press ◽  
Categorization Task ◽  
Semantic System ◽  
Semantic Categorization ◽  
Verbal Responses ◽  
Lexical Semantic ◽  
Object Interaction ◽  
Motor Information

AbstractBody-object interaction (BOI) measures people's perceptions of the ease with which a human body can physically interact with a word's referent. Facilitatory BOI effects, involving faster responses for high BOI words, have been reported in a number of visual word recognition tasks using button press responses. Since BOI effects have only been observed in button-press tasks, it is possible that the effects may be due to priming by high BOI words of the motor system, rather than activation of stored motor information in the lexical semantic system. If this hypothesis is correct, BOI effects should not be observed in tasks using verbal responses. We tested this hypothesis in three versions of a go/no-go semantic categorization task: one version required button press responses, whereas the other two versions required verbal responses. Contrary to the motor priming hypothesis, we observed facilitatory BOI effects in all three versions of the semantic categorization task. These results support the inference that stored motor information is indeed an important component of the lexical semantic system.

Imageability and Body-Object Interaction Effects in Multisyllabic Word Recognition

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen D. R. Bennett ◽  
A. Nicole Burnett ◽  
Paul D. Siakaluk ◽  
Penny M. Pexman
Keyword(s):  
Word Recognition ◽  
Interaction Effects ◽  
Object Interaction

scholarly journals Brain Activation During Reading in Deep Dyslexia: An MEG Study

2000 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 622-634 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matti Laine ◽  
Riitta Salmelin ◽  
Päivi Helenius ◽  
Reijo Marttila
Keyword(s):  
Semantic Processing ◽  
Semantic Analysis ◽  
Right Hemisphere ◽  
Word Reading ◽  
Brain Activity ◽  
Temporal Cortex ◽  
Single Word ◽  
Lexical Semantic ◽  
Deep Dyslexia ◽  
Single Word Reading

Magnetoencephalographic (MEG) changes in cortical activity were studied in a chronic Finnish-speaking deep dyslexic patient during single-word and sentence reading. It has been hypothesized that in deep dyslexia, written word recognition and its lexical-semantic analysis are subserved by the intact right hemisphere. However, in our patient, as well as in most nonimpaired readers, lexical-semantic processing as measured by sentence-final semantic-incongruency detection was related to the left superior-temporal cortex activation. Activations around this same cortical area could be identified in single-word reading as well. Another factor relevant to deep dyslexic reading, the morphological complexity of the presented words, was also studied. The effect of morphology was observed only during the preparation for oral output. By performing repeated recordings 1 year apart, we were able to document significant variability in both the spontaneous activity and the evoked responses in the lesioned left hemisphere even though at the behavioural level, the patient's performance was stable. The observed variability emphasizes the importance of estimating consistency of brain activity both within and between measurements in brain-damaged individuals.

The time-course of morphosyntactic and semantic priming in late bilinguals: A study of German adjectives

2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 435-456 ◽  
Author(s):  
SINA BOSCH ◽  
HELENA KRAUSE ◽  
ALINA LEMINEN
Keyword(s):  
Semantic Processing ◽  
Time Course ◽  
Semantic Information ◽  
Temporal Dynamics ◽  
Native Speaker ◽  
Behavioral Experiment ◽  
Lexical Semantic ◽  
Brain Responses ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
Spatially Extended

How do late proficient bilinguals process morphosyntactic and lexical-semantic information in their non-native language (L2)? How is this information represented in the L2 mental lexicon? And what are the neural signatures of L2 morphosyntactic and lexical-semantic processing? We addressed these questions in one behavioral and two ERP priming experiments on inflected German adjectives testing a group of advanced late Russian learners of German in comparison to native speaker (L1) controls. While in the behavioral experiment, the L2 learners performed native-like, the ERP data revealed clear L1/L2 differences with respect to the temporal dynamics of grammatical processing. Specifically, our results show that L2 morphosyntactic processing yielded temporally and spatially extended brain responses relative to L1 processing, indicating that grammatical processing of inflected words in an L2 is more demanding and less automatic than in the L1. However, this group of advanced L2 learners showed native-like lexical-semantic processing.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document