Cover not available
Article published In:
Semantic Considerations of Lexical Processing
[The Mental Lexicon 9:1] 2014
► pp. 1–22

Semantic effects in word recognition are moderated by body-object interaction

| Clarke University
| Wayne State University

A potential embodied influence in the semantic effects of Danger and Usefulness is investigated using Body-Object Interaction (BOI). Lexical decision times are influenced by ratings of Danger and Usefulness. In a frequently-found interaction, thought to be produced by activated approach-withdraw motor responses, increasing Danger ratings produce faster responses for items with lower Usefulness ratings while producing slower responses for items with higher Usefulness ratings. BOI is used to test the embodied explanation of this interaction. The same 102 words were presented in two lexical decision experiments. In both auditory and visual lexical decision, the effects of Danger and Usefulness were found to be diminished for items with higher BOI ratings. BOI moderates Danger and Usefulness effects in both auditory and visual lexical decision, in a way that suggests BOI is either the stronger or the temporally earlier effect.

Keywords: body-object interaction, auditory lexical decision, embodiment, usefulness, survival processing, visual lexical decision, lexical access, danger
Published online: 25 April 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.9.1.01hav
References
Baayen, R. H. (
2008a)  Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004) Statistics in psycholinguistics: A critique of some current gold standards. Mental Lexicon Working Papers , 11, 1-45.Google Scholar
2008b) The languageR library, version 1.0. Retrieved from: [URL]
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 for 599 multisyllabic nouns. Behavior Research Methods , 4(4), 1100-1109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boot, I., & Pecher, D. (
2008) Word recognition is affected by the meaning of orthographic neighbours: Evidence from semantic decision tasks. Language and Cognitive Processes , 23(3), 375-393. 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), 6-224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Forster, K. I., & Hector, J. (
2002) Cascaded versus noncascaded models of lexical and semantic processing the turple effect. Memory & Cognition , 30(7), 1106-1116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gaskell, M. G., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (
1997) Integrating form and meaning: A distributed model of speech perception. Language and Cognitive Processes , 121, 613-656. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glenberg, A. M., & Kaschak, M. P. (
2002) Grounding language in action. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review , 9(3), 558-565. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harm, M. W., & Seidenberg, M. S. (
2004) Computing the meanings of words in reading: Cooperative division of labor between visual and phonological processes. Psychological Review , 1111, 662-720. 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
Keuleers, E., & Brysbaert, M. (
2010) Wuggy: A multilingual pseudoword generator. Behavior Research Methods , 42(3), 627-633. 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 , 122(2), 81-91. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Marslen-Wilson, W. D., & Welsh, A. (
1978) Processing interactions and lexical access during word recognition in continuous speech. Cognitive Psychology , 101, 29-63. DOI logo.Google Scholar
McRae, K., Cree, G. S., Seidenberg, M. S., & McNorgan, C. (
2005) Semantic feature production norms for a large set of living and nonliving things. Behavior Research Methods , 371, 547-559. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McRae, K., de Sa, V. R., & Seidenberg, M. S. (
1997) On the nature and scope of featural representations of word meaning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General , 1261, 99-130. 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
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
Robinson, M. D. (
1998) Running from William James' bear: A review of preattentive mechanisms and their contributions to emotional experience. Cognition and Emotion , 12(5), 667-696. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
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
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 & Applied Social Psychology , 12(3), 281-289. DOI logo.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 & Cognition , 3(1), 1-14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, M. D. (
1988) MRC Psycholinguistic Database: Machine-usable dictionary, Version 2.00. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers , 20(1), 6-10. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, M. (
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 , 14(6), 1218-1225. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012) Auditory and visual processing of pseudowords are affected by their connotations of danger and usefulness. Presented at the 53rd annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Minneapolis, MN, November 15-18. Abstracts of the Psychonomic Society, 17, 4. DOI logo
Wurm, L. H., & Ross, S. E. (
2001) Conditional root uniqueness points: Psychological validity and perceptual consequences. Journal of Memory and Language , 45(1), 39-57. 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 , 34(2), 381-398. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wurm, L. H., & Vakoch, D. A. (
2000) The adaptive value of lexical connotation in speech perception. Cognition and Emotion , 14(2), 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 , 21(7), 1470-1495. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yap, M. J., Pexman, P. M., Wellsby, M., Hargreaves, I. S., & Huff, M. J. (
2012) An abundance of riches: Cross-task comparisons of semantic richness effects in visual word recognition. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience , 6, 72. 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 6 other publications

ALONSO, MARÍA ÁNGELES, EMILIANO DÍEZ, ANTONIO M. DÍEZ-ÁLAMO & ANGEL FERNANDEZ
2018. Body–object interaction ratings for 750 Spanish words. Applied Psycholinguistics 39:6 ► pp. 1239 ff. DOI logo
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
Miceli, A., E. Wauthia, L. Lefebvre, G.T. Vallet, L. Ris & I. Simoes Loureiro
2022. Differences related to aging in sensorimotor knowledge: Investigation of perceptual strength and body object interaction. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics 102 ► pp. 104715 ff. DOI logo
Pexman, Penny M., Emiko Muraki, David M. Sidhu, Paul D. Siakaluk & Melvin J. Yap
2019. Quantifying sensorimotor experience: Body–object interaction ratings for more than 9,000 English words. Behavior Research Methods 51:2 ► pp. 453 ff. DOI logo
Van Havermaet, Lisa R. & Lee H. Wurm
2017. Effects of Danger, Usefulness, and Body-Object Interaction in picture naming. The Mental Lexicon 12:1 ► pp. 51 ff. DOI logo
Wurm, Lee H.
2015. Auditory and visual processing of novel stimuli are affected by subjective connotations of Danger and Usefulness. The Mental Lexicon 10:1 ► 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.