Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBottini, Roberto
dc.contributor.authorMorucci, Piermatteo
dc.contributor.authorD’Urso, Anna
dc.contributor.authorCollignon, Olivier
dc.contributor.authorCrepaldi, Davide
dc.date.accessioned2022-10-20T07:39:08Z
dc.date.available2022-10-20T07:39:08Z
dc.date.issued2022
dc.identifier.citationBottini, 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/xge0001090es_ES
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Experimental Psychology: General
dc.identifier.issn0096-3445
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10810/58124
dc.descriptionOnline First Publication, September 9, 2021es_ES
dc.description.abstractAbstract 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.sponsorshipThis 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.isoenges_ES
dc.publisherAPA American Psychological Associationes_ES
dc.relationinfo:eu-repo/grantAgreement/EC/H2020/ERC-20130StG-337573es_ES
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesses_ES
dc.subjectconcreteness effectes_ES
dc.subjectblindnesses_ES
dc.subjectembodied semanticses_ES
dc.subjectlexical processinges_ES
dc.titleThe Concreteness Advantage in Lexical Decision Does Not Depend on Perceptual Simulationses_ES
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlees_ES
dc.rights.holder© 2021 American Psychological Associationes_ES
dc.relation.publisherversionhttps://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/xgees_ES
dc.identifier.doi10.1037/xge0001090


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record