Cover not available
Article published In:
The Mental Lexicon
Vol. 12:3 (2017) ► pp.283–308

Effects of emotion information on processing pain-related words in visual word recognition

 | University of Northern British Columbia
 | University of Northern British Columbia
 | University of Northern British Columbia
 | University of Northern British Columbia
 | University of Calgary
 | University of Northern British Columbia
We examined the effects of emotion information (valence, arousal, and emotional experience) on lexical decision and semantic categorization (using a “Is the word pain-related or not?” decision criterion) performance for pain-related words. Using linear mixed-effects modeling, we observed facilitatory effects of emotional experience in both tasks, such that faster responses were associated with higher emotional experience ratings. We observed a marginally significant valence effect in the semantic categorization task, such that faster responses were associated with more unpleasantness ratings. These effects were observed even with several other predictor variables (e.g., frequency, age of acquisition, concreteness, physical pain experience ratings) included in the analyses. These results suggest that the dimensions of emotional experience and (to a lesser degree) valence underlie emotion conceptual knowledge of pain-related words; however, their influence appears to be dynamic, depending on task demands.
Keywords: visual word recognition, grounded cognition, lexical-semantic representation, emotion knowledge, valence, arousal, emotional experience
Article outline
  • Method
    • Participants
    • Stimuli
    • Apparatus and procedure
    • Data analysis
  • Results and discussion
    • Lexical decision task
    • Semantic categorization task
  • General discussion
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Published online: 16 March 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.17001.sia
References (58)
References
Adelman, J. S., & Estes, Z. (2013). Emotion and memory: A recognition advantage for positive and negative words independent of arousal. Cognition, 1291, 530–535. 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. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 221, 577–660. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003). Situated simulation in the human conceptual system. Language and Cognitive Processes, 181, 513–562. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). Simulation, situated conceptualization, and prediction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 3641, 1281–1289. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barsalou, L. W., Simmons, W. K., Barbey, A. K., & Wilson, C. D. (2003). Grounding conceptual knowledge in modality-specific systems. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 71, 84–91. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barrett, L. F., Wilson-Mendenhall, C. D., & Barsalou, L. W. (2014). A psychological construction account of emotion regulation and dysregulation: The role of situated conceptualization. In J. J. Gross (Ed.), The Handbook of Emotion Regulation (2nd Ed, pp. 447–465). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 671, 1–48. 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 Methods, 431, 1100–1109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (1999). Affective norms for English words (ANEW): Stimuli, instruction manual and affective ratings (Technical Report C-1). Gainesville, FL: Center for Research in Psychophysiology, University of Florida.Google Scholar
Brysbaert, M., Warriner, A. B., & Kuperman, V. (2014). Concreteness ratings for 40 thousand generally known English word lemmas. Behavior Research Methods, 461, 904–911. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Buchanan, L., Westbury, C., & Burgess, C. (2001). Characterizing the neighborhood: Semantic neighborhood effects in lexical decision and naming. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 81, 531–544. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Groot, A. M. B. (1989). Representational aspects of word imageability and word frequency as assessed through word association. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 151, 824–845.Google Scholar
Hargreaves, I. S., Leonard, G. A., Pexman, P. M., Pittman, D. J., Siakaluk, P. D., & Goodyear, B. G. (2012). The neural correlates of the body-object interaction effect in semantic processing. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 6:22, 1–8. DOI logoGoogle 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, 221, 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, 281, 686–713.Google Scholar
Hino, Y., Pexman, P. M., & Lupker, S. J. (2006). Ambiguity and relatedness effects in semantic tasks: Are they due to semantic coding? Journal of Memory & Language, 551, 247–273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
James, C. T. (1975). The role of semantic information in lexical decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11, 130–136.Google Scholar
Jastrzembski, J. E. (1981). Multiple meanings, number of related meanings, frequency of occurrence, and the lexicon. Cognitive Psychology, 131, 278–305. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jastrzembski, J. E., & Stanners, R. F. (1975). Multiple word meanings and lexical search speed. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 141, 534–537. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Juhasz, B. J., & Yap, M. J. (2013). Sensory experience ratings for over 5,000 mono- and disyllabic words. Behavior Research Methods, 451, 160–168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Juhasz, B. J., Yap, M. J., Dicke, J., Taylor, S. C., & Gullick, M. M. (2011). Tangible words are recognized faster: The grounding of meaning in sensory and perceptual systems. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 641, 1683–1691. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiefer, M., & Pulvermüller, F. (2012). Conceptual representations in mind and brain: Theoretical developments, current evidence and future directions. Cortex, 481, 805–825. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiverstein, J., & Miller, M. (2015). The embodied brain: Towards a radical embodied cognitive neuroscience. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 91:237. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kousta, S. -T., Vigliocco, G., Vinson, D. P., Andrews, M., & Del Campo, E. (2011). The representation of abstract words: Why emotion matters. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1401, 14–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kousta, S. -T., Vinson, D. P., & Vigliocco, G. (2009). Emotion words, regardless of polarity, have a processing advantage over neutral words. Cognition, 1121, 473–481. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kroll, J. F., & Mervis, J. S. (1986). Lexical access for concrete and abstract words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 121, 92–107.Google Scholar
Kuperman, V., Estes, Z., Brysbaert, M., & Warriner, A. B. (2014). Emotion and language: Valence and arousal affect word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1431, 1065–1081. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuperman, V., Stadthagen-Gonzalez, H., & Brysbaert, M. (2012). Age-of-acquisition ratings for 30,000 English words. Behavior Research Methods, 441, 978–990. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Landauer, T. K., & Dumais, S. T. (1997). A solution to Plato’s problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 1041, 211–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lund, K., & Burgess, C. (1996). Producing high-dimensional semantic spaces from lexical co- occurrence. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 281, 203–208. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moffat, M., Siakaluk, P. D., Sidhu, D. M., & Pexman, P. M. (2015). Situated conceptualization and semantic processing: Effects of emotional experience and context availability in semantic categorization and naming tasks. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 221, 408–419. 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. 61:275. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pecher, D. (2001). Perception is a two-way junction: Feedback semantics in word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 81, 545–551. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pexman, P. M. (2012). Meaning based influences on visual word recognition. In J. S. Adelman (Ed.), Visual word recognition. Vol. 21 (pp. 24–43). New York: Psychology Press.Google 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 & Review, 151, 161–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pexman, P. M., Holyk, G. G., & Monfils, M. -H. (2003). Number of features effects and semantic processing. Memory & Cognition, 311, 842–855. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pexman, P. M., Lupker, S. J., & Hino, Y. (2002). The impact of feedback semantics in visual word recognition: Number of features effects in lexical decision and naming tasks. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 91, 542–549. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pexman, P. M., & Yap, M. J. (in press). Individual differences in semantic processing: Insights from the Calgary semantic decision project. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition.
Recio, G., Conrad, M., Hansen, L. B., & Jacobs, A. M. (2014). On pleasure and thrill: The interplay between arousal and valence during visual word recognition. Brain and Language, 1341, 34–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rubenstein, H., Garfield, L., & Millikan, J. A. (1970). Homographic entries in the internal lexicon. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 91, 487–494. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rubenstein, H., Lewis, S. S., & Rubenstein, M. (1971). Homographic entries in the internal lexicon: Effects of systematicity and relative frequency of meanings. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 101, 57–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scott, G., O’Donnell, P. J., & Sereno, S. C. (2014). Emotion words and categories: evidence from lexical decision. Cognitive Processing, 151, 209–215. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shaoul, C., & Westbury, C. (2010). Exploring lexical co-occurrence space using HiDEx. Behavior Research Methods, 421, 393–413. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siakaluk, P. D., Buchanan, L., & Westbury, C. (2003). The effect of semantic distance in yes/no and go/no-go semantic categorization tasks. Memory & Cognition, 311, 100–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siakaluk, P. D., Knol, N., & Pexman, P. M. (2014). Effects of emotional experience for abstract words in the Stroop task. Cognitive Science, 381, 1698–1717. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siakaluk, P. D., Newcombe, P. I., Duffels, B., Li, E., Sidhu, D. M., Yap, M. J., & Pexman, P. M. (2016). Effects of emotional experience in lexical decision. Frontiers in Psychology. 71:1157. DOI logoGoogle 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, 1061, 433–443. DOI logoGoogle 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, 321, 591–605. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tillotson, S. M., Siakaluk, P. D., & Pexman, P. M. (2008). Body-object interaction ratings for 1,618 monosyllabic nouns. Behavior Research Methods, 401, 1075–1078. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vigliocco, G., Meteyard, L., Andrews, M., & Kousta, S. (2009). Toward a theory of semantic representation. Language and Cognition, 11, 219–248. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vinson, D., Ponari, M., & Vigliocco, G. (2014). How does emotional content affect lexical processing? Cognition and Emotion, 281, 737–746. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Warriner, A. B., Kuperman, V., & Brysbaert, M. (2013). Norms of valence, arousal, and dominance for 13,915 English lemmas. Behavior Research Methods, 451, 1191–1207. 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, 31, 1–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson-Mendenhall, C. D., Barrett, L. F., Simmons, W. K., & Barsalou, L. W. (2011). Grounding emotion in situated conceptualization. Neuropsychologia, 491, 1105–1127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yap, M. J., Pexman, P. M., Wellsby, M., Hargreaves, I. S., & Huff, M. (2012). An abundance of riches: Cross-task comparisons of semantic richness effects in visual word recognition. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yap, M. J., & Seow, C. S., (2014). The influence of emotion on lexical processing: Insights from RT distributional analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 211, 526–533. DOI logoGoogle 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 & Review, 181, 742–750. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

MacRae, Suesan, Brian Duffels, Annie Duchesne, Paul D. Siakaluk & Heath E. Matheson
2022. God in body and space: Investigating the sensorimotor grounding of abstract concepts. Frontiers in Psychology 13 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 july 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.