Cover not available
Article published In:
The Mental Lexicon
Vol. 12:1 (2017) ► pp.51–70

Effects of Danger, Usefulness, and Body-Object Interaction in picture naming

| Clarke University
| Wayne State University

Several previous studies have shown that the time-course of word recognition is determined in part by an interaction between connotations of Danger and Usefulness. A small, mostly separate literature has investigated the role of Body-Object Interaction (BOI) in lexical processing. BOI is defined as the ease with which one can interact with an object. To date the lexical decision study of Van Havermaet and Wurm (2014) is the only study to include all three of these constructs. Stimuli in the current study were black-and-white line drawings corresponding to the common nouns used by Van Havermaet and Wurm (2014). Participants viewed the stimuli one at a time in a random order and had to name them as quickly as possible. Naming times revealed a significant three-way interaction between Danger, Usefulness, and BOI similar to that found for visual lexical decision: The familiar Danger x Usefulness interaction, observed in many previous studies, was observed only for items relatively lower on BOI. The interaction between semantic and embodied processing variables is not restricted to purely linguistic stimuli.

Keywords: lexical access, picture naming, danger, usefulness, embodiment, body-object interaction, survival processing
Article outline
  • Danger and Usefulness
  • Embodiment
  • Body-Object Interaction (BOI)
  • Current study
  • Preliminary rating study: Picture rating
    • Method
      • Participants
      • Stimuli
      • Procedure
    • Results and discussion
  • Main reaction-time study: Picture-naming method
    • Method
      • Participants
      • Stimuli
      • Procedure
      • Data analysis
    • Results and discussion
  • General discussion
  • Note
  • References


This article is currently available as a sample article.

Published online: 29 June 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.12.1.03van
References
Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, B. M.
(2008) Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 591, 390–412. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Cortese, M. J., Hutchison, K. A., Kessler, B., Loftis, B., Neely, J. H., Nelson, D. L., Simpson, G. B., & Treiman, R.
(2007) The English Lexicon Project. Behavior Research Methods, 391, 445–459. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barsalou, L. W.
(1999) Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(4), 577–660. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008) Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 591, 617–645. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bennett, S. D. R., Burnett, A. N., Siakaluk, P. D., & Pexman, P. M.
(2011) Imageability and body-object interaction ratings for 599 multisyllabic nouns. Behavior Research, 431, 1100–1109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chen, S., & Bargh, J. A.
(1999) Consequences of automatic evaluation: Immediate behavior predispositions to approach or avoid the stimulus. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25 (5–6), 215–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glenberg, A. M., & Kaschak, M. P.
(2002) Grounding language in action. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(3), 558–565. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hansen, D., Siakaluk, P. D., & Pexman, P. M.
(2012), The influence of print exposure on the body-object interaction effect in visual word recognition. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6(113), 1–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hargreaves, I. S., Leonard, G. A., Pexman, P. M., Pittman, D. J., Siakaluk, P. D., & Goodyear, B. G.
(2012) Neural correlates of the body-object interaction effect in semantic processing. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6(22), 1–8. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hauk, O., & Pulvermüller, F.
(2004) Neurophysiological Distinction of Action Words in the Fronto-Central Cortex. Human Brain Mapping, 21(3), 191–201. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Havas, D. A., Glenberg, A. M., & Rinck, M.
(2007) Emotion simulation during language comprehension. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(3), 436–441. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jostmann, N. B., Lakens, D., & Schubert, T. W.
(2009) Weight as an embodiment of importance. Psychological Science, 20(9), 1169–1174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kryuchkova, T., Tucker, B. V., Wurm, L. H., & Baayen, R. H.
(2012) Danger and usefulness are detected early in auditory lexical processing: Evidence from electroencephalography. Brain and Language, 1221, 81–91. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B.
(2014) The lmerTest library, version 2.0–6. [URL].
Lee, S. W. S., & Schwarz, N.
(2010) Dirty hands and dirty mouths: Embodiment of the moral-purity metaphor is specific to the motor modality involved in moral transgression. Psychological Science, 21(10), 1423–1425. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Louwerse, M. M. & Jeuniaux, P.
(2010) The linguistic and embodied nature of conceptual processing. Cognition, 114(1), 96–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meier, B. P., & Robinson, M. D.
(2004) Why the sunny side is up: Associations between affect and vertical position. Psychological Science, 15(4), 243–247. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Myung, J.-y., Blumstein, S. E., & Sedivy, J. C.
(2006) Playing on the typewriter, typing on the piano: Manipulation knowledge of objects. Cognition, 98(3), 223–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newcombe, P. I., Campbell, C., Siakaluk, P. D., & Pexman, P. M.
(2012) Effects of emotional and sensorimotor knowledge in semantic processing of concrete and abstract nouns. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6(275), 1–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Proffitt, D. R., Stefanucci, J., Banton, T., & Epstein, W.
(2003) The role of effort in perceiving distance. Psychological Science, 14(2), 106–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pulvermüller, F., Härle, M., & Hummel, F.
(2001) Walking or talking?: Behavioral and neurophysiological correlates of action verb processing. Brain and Language, 781, 143–168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pulvermüller, F., Hauk, O., Nikulin, V. V., & llmoniemi, R. J.
(2005) Functional links between motor and language systems. European Journal of Neuroscience, 21(3), 793–797. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
R core team
(2013) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. [URL].
Siakaluk, P. D., Pexman, P. M., Aguilera, L., Owen, W. J., & Sears, C. R.
(2008a) Evidence for the activation of sensorimotor information during visual word recognition: The body-object interaction effect. Cognition, 106(1), 433–443. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siakaluk, P. D., Pexman, P. M., Sears, C. R., Wilson, K., Locheed, K., & Owen, W. J.
(2008b) The benefits of sensorimotor knowledge: Body-object interaction facilitates semantic processing. Cognitive Science, 32(3), 591–605. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sidhu, D. M., Kwan, R., Pexman, P., & Siakaluk, P. D.
(2014) Effects of relative embodiment in lexical and semantic processing. Acta Psychologica, 1491, 32–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Snodgrass, J. G., & Vanderwart, M.
(1980) A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6(2), 174–215. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Strack, F., Martin, L. L., & Stepper, S.
(1988) Inhibiting and facilitating conditions of the human smile: A nonobtrusive test of the facial feedback hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(5), 768–777. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szekely, A., Jacobsen, T., D’Amico, S., Devescovi, A., Andonova, E., Herron, D., et al.
(2004) A new on-line resource for psycholinguistic studies. Journal of Memory and Language, 511, 247–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tabachnik, B. G., & Fidell, L. S.
(2007) Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). New York: Pearson Education, Inc.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(4), 1075–1078. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tom, G., Pettersen, P., Lau, T., Burton, T., & Cook, J.
(1991) The role of overt head movement in the formation of affect. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12(3), 281–289. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tousignant, C. & Pexman, P.
(2012) Flexible recruitment of semantic richness: context modulates body-object interaction effects in lexical-semantic processing. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6(53), 1–7. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vakoch, D. A., & Wurm, L. H.
(1997) Emotional connotation in speech perception: Semantic associations in the general lexicon. Cognition and Emotion, 11(4), 337–349. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Havermaet, L. R., & Wurm, L. H.
(2014) Semantic effects in word recognition are moderated by body-object interaction. The Mental Lexicon, 9(1), 1–22. DOI logoGoogle 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), 1–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, M.
(1988) MRC Psycholinguistic Database: Machine-usable dictionary, Version 2.00. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 20(1), 6–10. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002) Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(4), 625–636. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Witherell, D., Wurm, L. H., Seaman, S. R., Brugnone, N. A., & Fulford, E. T.
(2012) Danger and Usefulness effects as a function of concept ancientness. The Mental Lexicon, 7(2), 183–209. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wurm, L. H.
(2007) Danger and usefulness: An alternative framework for understanding rapid evaluation effects in perception? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 141, 1218–1225. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wurm, L. H., & Seaman, S. R.
(2008) Semantic effects in naming and perceptual identification, but not in delayed naming: Implications for models and tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 341, 381–398. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wurm, L. H., & Vakoch, D. A.
(2000) The adaptive value of lexical connotation in speech perception. Cognition and Emotion, 141, 177–191. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wurm, L. H., Vakoch, D. A., Seaman, S. R., & Buchanan, L.
(2004) Semantic effects in auditory word recognition. Mental Lexicon Working Papers, 11, 47–62.Google Scholar
Wurm, L. H., Whitman, R. D., Seaman, S. R., Hill, L., & Ulstad, H. M.
(2007) Semantic processing in auditory lexical decision: Ear-of-presentation and sex differences. Cognition and Emotion, 211, 1470–1495. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhong, C.-B., & Leonardelli, G. J.
(2008) Cold and lonely: Does social exclusion literally feel cold? Psychological Science, 19(9), 838–842. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhong, C.-B., & Liljenquist, K.
(2006) Washing away your sins: Threatened morality and physical cleansing. Science, 313(5792), 1451–1452. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Heard, Alison, Christopher R. Madan, Andrea B. Protzner & Penny M. Pexman
2019. Getting a grip on sensorimotor effects in lexical–semantic processing. Behavior Research Methods 51:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.