dc.contributor.author | Bottini, Roberto | |
dc.contributor.author | Morucci, Piermatteo | |
dc.contributor.author | D’Urso, Anna | |
dc.contributor.author | Collignon, Olivier | |
dc.contributor.author | Crepaldi, Davide | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2022-10-20T07:39:08Z | |
dc.date.available | 2022-10-20T07:39:08Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2022 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Bottini, R., Morucci, P., D'Urso, A., Collignon, O., & Crepaldi, D. (2022). The concreteness advantage in lexical decision does not depend on perceptual simulations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 151(3), 731–738. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001090 | es_ES |
dc.identifier.citation | Journal of Experimental Psychology: General | |
dc.identifier.issn | 0096-3445 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10810/58124 | |
dc.description | Online First Publication, September 9, 2021 | es_ES |
dc.description.abstract | Abstract words are typically more difficult to identify than concrete words in lexical-decision, word-naming,
and recall tasks. This behavioral advantage, known as the concreteness effect, is often considered as evidence
for embodied semantics, which emphasizes the role of sensorimotor experience in the comprehension of
word meaning. In this view, online sensorimotor simulations triggered by concrete words, but not by abstract
words, facilitate access to word meaning and speed up word identification. To test whether perceptual simulation
is the driving force underlying the concreteness effect, we compared data from early-blind and sighted
individuals performing an auditory lexical-decision task. Subjects were presented with property words referring
to abstract (e.g., “logic”), concrete multimodal (e.g., “spherical”), and concrete unimodal visual concepts
(e.g., “blue”). According to the embodied account, the processing advantage for concrete unimodal visual
words should disappear in the early blind because they cannot rely on visual experience and simulation during
semantics processing (i.e., purely visual words should be abstract for early-blind people). On the contrary,
we found that both sighted and blind individuals are faster when processing multimodal and unimodal visual
words compared with abstract words. This result suggests that the concreteness effect does not depend on
perceptual simulations but might be driven by modality-independent properties of word meaning. | es_ES |
dc.description.sponsorship | This research was supported in part by the Research Projects of National
Relevance (PRIN) grant “How Do We Make Sense of Words?” (Project
Grant 2015PCNJ5F) awarded to Davide Crepaldi and Olivier Collignon by
the Italian Ministry of Education, the European Research Council (ERC)
grant “MADVIS—Mapping the Deprived Visual System: Cracking
Function for Prediction” (Project 337573, ERC-20130StG), and the Belgian
Excellence of Science (EOS) program (Project 30991544) awarded to
Olivier Collignon. | es_ES |
dc.language.iso | eng | es_ES |
dc.publisher | APA American Psychological Association | es_ES |
dc.relation | info:eu-repo/grantAgreement/EC/H2020/ERC-20130StG-337573 | es_ES |
dc.rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess | es_ES |
dc.subject | concreteness effect | es_ES |
dc.subject | blindness | es_ES |
dc.subject | embodied semantics | es_ES |
dc.subject | lexical processing | es_ES |
dc.title | The Concreteness Advantage in Lexical Decision Does Not Depend on Perceptual Simulations | es_ES |
dc.type | info:eu-repo/semantics/article | es_ES |
dc.rights.holder | © 2021 American Psychological Association | es_ES |
dc.relation.publisherversion | https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/xge | es_ES |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1037/xge0001090 | |