词汇理解中内隐空间表征激活的认知机制
|
摘要
人类依赖感知运动系统和语言理解系统来获得世界知识。一般来讲,感知运动系统负责知觉和运动的加工,语言理解系统负责从语言刺激中提取语义信息。尽管如此,语言理解是否需要感知运动系统的参与却是一个有争议的热点问题。传统的符号认知理论认为,语义信息以抽象的符号形式存储在大脑的记忆系统中,该系统独立于一般的感知运动系统。根据这种观点,语言理解是大脑中抽象的语义符号链接的过程,而不涉及感知运动系统的激活。与符号理论的观点不同,最近兴起的具身认知理论认为,语义信息以具体模态的形式存储在感知运动系统中。根据这种观点,语言理解就是感知运动经验以模拟的方式重新激活的过程。
空间表征能力是人类识别物体和操作该物体的重要基础,比如用杯子喝水需要确定杯子和个体之间的空间方位。因此,传统的符号认知理论认为,个体在认识物体时获得的空间经验有利于随后的物体识别和动作执行；与物体不同,描述物体的词往往表征抽象的语义概念,这种概念语义只表征了物体本身的本质特征,而不包含个体认识物体时获得的空间经验。因此,认识物体时获取的空间经验并不影响表示物体的词的加工。尽管如此,具身理论则认为,人在识别物体时获取的空间经验不仅能够成为词的语义概念表征的一部分,影响具体词的加工,而且能为抽象概念的表征提供知觉基础,影响抽象词的加工。当前,词汇与空间之间的一致性效应被视作支持具身认知观点的关键性证据。词汇-空间效应指当词汇的空间意义和反应目标的空间位置一致时被试表现出更好的反应绩效(例如,被试加工词汇“月亮”促进了随后出现在屏幕上方目标的加工)。当前大量研究表明具有内隐空间意义的具体词汇(例如,“月亮”具有典型的上空间特征)和具有隐喻空间意义的抽象词汇(例如“快乐”具有隐喻的上空间意义)都能诱发词汇-空间效应。尽管如此,词汇理解中内隐空间表征激活的认知机制仍然不清楚。具体而言,当前存在以下问题需要进一步研究：(1)词汇-空间效应的产生是否受到自上而下的任务调节；(2)具体和抽象词条件下的词汇-空间效应是否享有相同的认知机制；(3)词汇空间效应的本质是“词汇理解影响了空间知觉”还是“词汇和空间目标的语义整合”。
为了探索上述问题,本研究使用行为和ERP技术,采用空间线索化范式下的空间辨认和字母辨认任务,分别考察不同具体性的物体词(高具体性,比如“月亮”)、情绪词(低具体性,比如“快乐”)和权力词条件下(中具体性,比如“总统”)词汇-空间效应产生的条件、差异和本质。具体而言,实验首先呈现给被试具有空间意义的线索词,随后要求被试对出现在屏幕上方或下方的字母(p或q)进行字母身份辨认和位置辨认任务。
实验1发现,当物体词汇内隐的空间表征与字母的空间位置表征一致时(比如,线索词“月亮”跟随一个屏幕上方的目标字母)比两者不一致时,被试对目标的反应更快。但是这种词汇-空间一致性效应仅仅出现在需要被试进行运动反应的空间辨认任务中(实验1b),而在一般的静止的空间辨认任务和字母辨认任务中,并未观察到该效应的出现(实验la)。该实验结果说明高具体词条件下的词汇-空间效应的产生依赖于任务驱动的自上而下调控。实验2和3发现,具体性较低的情绪词和权力词条件下同样观察到了词汇-空间效应,即当词汇隐喻的空间表征与随后字母的空间位置一致时(比如,线索词“快乐”或“总统”跟随一个屏幕上方的目标字母),被试表现出更快的反应时间。尤为重要的是,与高具体词条件下的词汇-空间效应不同,较低具体性的情绪词和权力词条件下产生的词汇-空间效应并不依赖于任务条件,表现出更强的稳健性。
实验4同样采用字母辨认任务考察了物体词汇影响空间加工的时间进程。虽然行为结果并未观测到显著的词汇-空间效应。但是ERP结果显示,一致条件下(物体词汇内隐的空间位置与字母的空间位置一致时)产生了更大的N1波幅,而在不一致条件产生了更大的P3波幅。这在一定程度上说明物体词汇仍然自动诱发了空间表征的激活,并且影响随后目标的早晚期加工,而其并不显著的行为效应可能是受到词汇诱发的其它知觉表征的影响。实验5和实验6使用字母辨认任务考察了情绪词和权力词影响空间目标加工的时间进程。两个实验都观察到了显著的词汇-空间效应,即当字母的空间位置与词汇隐喻的空间表征一致时,被试表现出更快的反应时间。非常重要的是,两类词汇理解对随后目标的调节却表现出不同的ERP模式。在情绪词条件下,一致条件下诱发了更大的P1和更小的N1波幅,同时产生了更大的P3波幅。而在权力词作为线索词时,一致条件下诱发了更小的P1波幅和更大的N1波幅,同时不一致条件下产生了更大的P3波幅。情绪词与权力词条件下的ERP模式差异可能是由于两者不同的具体性差异导致的。
概括起来,本研究有以下几点主要发现：
1.高具体性的物体词汇产生的词汇-空间效应受到自上而下的任务调控,而具体性较低的情绪词和权力词产生的词汇-空间效应则对任务需求不敏感。
2.不同具体性的物体词、情绪词和权利词都能影响空间目标的早期和后期加工,但是其影响模式却存在差异。
3.三种词汇在具体性方面的差异可能决定了三种词汇理解中空间表征的激活差异,词汇越具体,其激活的空间表征对随后空间目标的影响就越弱。
总之,本研究认为：第一,词汇越具体,词汇-空间效应的产生就越依赖任务调节；第二,词汇本身的具体性可能是导致具体和抽象词汇-空间效应差异的重要原因,而不管词汇代表的概念意义是否是抽象的；第三,词汇理解对随后空间目标的早期(P1或N1)加工的调节效应,证明了“词汇理解影响空间知觉”的具身本质。这些发现有助于人们理解语言认知的具身本质,并对儿童的语言学习具有一定的指导意义。
Humans often acquire knowledge about the world through the sensory-motor systems and the language-comprehension systems. Normally, the senory-motor systems are used for perception and action, whereas the language-comprehension systems are responsible for semantic retrieval through linguistic stimuli. However, a hotly debated question is whether language comprehension involves the activation of the sensory-motor systems. Two families of theories have proposed contrasting views on this venerable question. Traditional theories of symbolic cognition assume that semantic information is represented wthin in the memory systems in an abstract manner. According to this account, language comprehension is the process of symbolic connections, independently of the sensory-motor systems. In contrast, recent theories of embodied cognition propose that semantic information is represented within the sensory-motor systems in a modal manner. According to this embodiment theory, the sensory-motor systems used for perception and action should be engaged during language comprehension.
The ability to represent space is critical for identifying an object and acting upon it such as drinking from a cup. Thus, traditionally theories have stressed that spatial experiences affect low-level cognition, such as perception and action, and cannot influence the processing of the words referring to objects, as this information may be not part of the meaning of the words. However, theories of embodied cognition assume that spatial information not only can be part of concrete word meaning and impact word processing, but also provided the basis of abstract words and concepts. There is converging evidence that spatial representations play a vital role in understanding words. To date, word-space congruent effect has been taken as critical evidence for embodied view. It refers to the phenomenon that performance is better when the spatial meaning of a word is congruent with the spatial location of the target than it is not. This effect has been found with words denoting objects with a typically spatial location (e.g., moon=up), and words denoting abstract and neural entities with a metaphorically spatial location in space (e.g., happy=up). Despite the compelling evidence, it remains unclear:(1) whether the word-space effect is dependent on top-down control induced by task demands;(2) whether the word-space effect for concrete and abstract involves the same cognitive and neural mechanisms;(3) whether the word-space effect reflects the influence of words with the implicitly or metaphorically spatial respresentations on spatial perception, or suggests semantic integration between words and spatial targets.
To determine the condition, difference and nature of word-space congruent effect for both concrete and abstract words, with the help of behavioral and ERP techniques, the present study used the different task (location discrimination vs. identity discrimination) to assess the Word-space congruent effect for object (high concreteness), emotion (low concreteness), power words (moderate concreteness) across a series of experiments. Specifically, we presented participants with cue words with implicit or metaphorical spatial meaning at the center of the screen. After the presentation of the cue words, participants were asked to identify a target letter ("p" or "q") at the top or bottom of the screen (identity discrimination) or were asked to identify the spatial position of the target (location discrimination).
Experiments1demonstrated that response times were faster when the target letter's location was congruent with the typical location of the word's referent (e.g., an upper target following the cue "moon") than it was not. However, this congruent effect was present only when participants were asked to make spatial judgements by moving to the response locations (lb). And no compatible effect was found when participants were asked to make spatial reponses with a a stationary mannr or make identiy judgements (la).This pattern of results suggests that the emergence of word-space effect for object words is contingent on top-down control. In contrast, Experiment2and3found response times were faster when the target letter's location was congruent with the metaphorical location of the emotion and power words (e.g., an upper target following the cue "happy" or "president"). More importantly for the present study, the congruent effects for both emotion and powet words were observed regardless of task types. These findings suggest that the word-space effects for different kinds of words with spatial meaning might be dependent on top-down control in different ways.
Experiment4shown that, althought the the behavioural effect was only marginally significant for object words, the ERP analysis showed larger Nl amplitudes for congruent trials (i.e., the target letter's location was congruent with the typical location of the word's referent) and larger P3amplitudes for incongruent trials. The present study extended previous studies by showing that the perception of object words could affect the processing of subsequent spatial stimuli at multiple stages (i.e., sensory processing and higher level cognitive processing. Experiment5demonstrated that, besides the significant behavioural effect for emotion-words, the ERP analysis showed larger P1and P3amplitudes for congruent trials (i.e., the target letter's location was congruent with the metaphorical location of the emotion words) and larger N1amplitudes for incongruent trials. Consitent with the behavioural effect for emotion words, the word-space effect was again observed in Experiment6, that is, response times were faster when the target letter's location was congruent with the metaphorical location of the power words. Contrary to the consistent behavioural findings, the ERP analysis for power words showed smaller P1and lager N1amplitudes for congruent trials (i.e., the target letter's location was congruent with the metaphorical location of the emotion words) and larger P3amplitudes for incongruent trials. The different pattern of ERP effects might be due to differences in concreteness between emotion words and power words.
In conclusion,(1) the word-space congruent words for object words is dependent on top-down control of task demands, whereas this effects for emotions words and power words are relatively robust, and not contingent on top-down control;(2) the understanding of object words, emotion words and power words could affect the processing of subsequent spatial stimuli at multiple stages (i.e., sensory processing and higher level cognitive processing, but theirs pattern is different;(3) the difference of concreteness between abstract and concrete words could influence activation of spatial information, with more concrete words exhibiting more weaker influences on space.
Taken together, the present study suggests that:firstly, the more concrete the word is, the more dependent on task demands the word-space effect is. Secondly, the differences in the word-space effects for concrete and abstract words may be due to the differences in concreteness of words, regardless of whether these words represent abstract concepts. Thirdly, word understanding modulates the early P1or N1processing of the subsequent target, suggesting the embodied nature of the word-space effect. These findings will contribute to our understanding of language processing, and will benefits language learning for children。
空间表征能力是人类识别物体和操作该物体的重要基础,比如用杯子喝水需要确定杯子和个体之间的空间方位。因此,传统的符号认知理论认为,个体在认识物体时获得的空间经验有利于随后的物体识别和动作执行；与物体不同,描述物体的词往往表征抽象的语义概念,这种概念语义只表征了物体本身的本质特征,而不包含个体认识物体时获得的空间经验。因此,认识物体时获取的空间经验并不影响表示物体的词的加工。尽管如此,具身理论则认为,人在识别物体时获取的空间经验不仅能够成为词的语义概念表征的一部分,影响具体词的加工,而且能为抽象概念的表征提供知觉基础,影响抽象词的加工。当前,词汇与空间之间的一致性效应被视作支持具身认知观点的关键性证据。词汇-空间效应指当词汇的空间意义和反应目标的空间位置一致时被试表现出更好的反应绩效(例如,被试加工词汇“月亮”促进了随后出现在屏幕上方目标的加工)。当前大量研究表明具有内隐空间意义的具体词汇(例如,“月亮”具有典型的上空间特征)和具有隐喻空间意义的抽象词汇(例如“快乐”具有隐喻的上空间意义)都能诱发词汇-空间效应。尽管如此,词汇理解中内隐空间表征激活的认知机制仍然不清楚。具体而言,当前存在以下问题需要进一步研究：(1)词汇-空间效应的产生是否受到自上而下的任务调节；(2)具体和抽象词条件下的词汇-空间效应是否享有相同的认知机制；(3)词汇空间效应的本质是“词汇理解影响了空间知觉”还是“词汇和空间目标的语义整合”。
为了探索上述问题,本研究使用行为和ERP技术,采用空间线索化范式下的空间辨认和字母辨认任务,分别考察不同具体性的物体词(高具体性,比如“月亮”)、情绪词(低具体性,比如“快乐”)和权力词条件下(中具体性,比如“总统”)词汇-空间效应产生的条件、差异和本质。具体而言,实验首先呈现给被试具有空间意义的线索词,随后要求被试对出现在屏幕上方或下方的字母(p或q)进行字母身份辨认和位置辨认任务。
实验1发现,当物体词汇内隐的空间表征与字母的空间位置表征一致时(比如,线索词“月亮”跟随一个屏幕上方的目标字母)比两者不一致时,被试对目标的反应更快。但是这种词汇-空间一致性效应仅仅出现在需要被试进行运动反应的空间辨认任务中(实验1b),而在一般的静止的空间辨认任务和字母辨认任务中,并未观察到该效应的出现(实验la)。该实验结果说明高具体词条件下的词汇-空间效应的产生依赖于任务驱动的自上而下调控。实验2和3发现,具体性较低的情绪词和权力词条件下同样观察到了词汇-空间效应,即当词汇隐喻的空间表征与随后字母的空间位置一致时(比如,线索词“快乐”或“总统”跟随一个屏幕上方的目标字母),被试表现出更快的反应时间。尤为重要的是,与高具体词条件下的词汇-空间效应不同,较低具体性的情绪词和权力词条件下产生的词汇-空间效应并不依赖于任务条件,表现出更强的稳健性。
实验4同样采用字母辨认任务考察了物体词汇影响空间加工的时间进程。虽然行为结果并未观测到显著的词汇-空间效应。但是ERP结果显示,一致条件下(物体词汇内隐的空间位置与字母的空间位置一致时)产生了更大的N1波幅,而在不一致条件产生了更大的P3波幅。这在一定程度上说明物体词汇仍然自动诱发了空间表征的激活,并且影响随后目标的早晚期加工,而其并不显著的行为效应可能是受到词汇诱发的其它知觉表征的影响。实验5和实验6使用字母辨认任务考察了情绪词和权力词影响空间目标加工的时间进程。两个实验都观察到了显著的词汇-空间效应,即当字母的空间位置与词汇隐喻的空间表征一致时,被试表现出更快的反应时间。非常重要的是,两类词汇理解对随后目标的调节却表现出不同的ERP模式。在情绪词条件下,一致条件下诱发了更大的P1和更小的N1波幅,同时产生了更大的P3波幅。而在权力词作为线索词时,一致条件下诱发了更小的P1波幅和更大的N1波幅,同时不一致条件下产生了更大的P3波幅。情绪词与权力词条件下的ERP模式差异可能是由于两者不同的具体性差异导致的。
概括起来,本研究有以下几点主要发现：
1.高具体性的物体词汇产生的词汇-空间效应受到自上而下的任务调控,而具体性较低的情绪词和权力词产生的词汇-空间效应则对任务需求不敏感。
2.不同具体性的物体词、情绪词和权利词都能影响空间目标的早期和后期加工,但是其影响模式却存在差异。
3.三种词汇在具体性方面的差异可能决定了三种词汇理解中空间表征的激活差异,词汇越具体,其激活的空间表征对随后空间目标的影响就越弱。
总之,本研究认为：第一,词汇越具体,词汇-空间效应的产生就越依赖任务调节；第二,词汇本身的具体性可能是导致具体和抽象词汇-空间效应差异的重要原因,而不管词汇代表的概念意义是否是抽象的；第三,词汇理解对随后空间目标的早期(P1或N1)加工的调节效应,证明了“词汇理解影响空间知觉”的具身本质。这些发现有助于人们理解语言认知的具身本质,并对儿童的语言学习具有一定的指导意义。
Humans often acquire knowledge about the world through the sensory-motor systems and the language-comprehension systems. Normally, the senory-motor systems are used for perception and action, whereas the language-comprehension systems are responsible for semantic retrieval through linguistic stimuli. However, a hotly debated question is whether language comprehension involves the activation of the sensory-motor systems. Two families of theories have proposed contrasting views on this venerable question. Traditional theories of symbolic cognition assume that semantic information is represented wthin in the memory systems in an abstract manner. According to this account, language comprehension is the process of symbolic connections, independently of the sensory-motor systems. In contrast, recent theories of embodied cognition propose that semantic information is represented within the sensory-motor systems in a modal manner. According to this embodiment theory, the sensory-motor systems used for perception and action should be engaged during language comprehension.
The ability to represent space is critical for identifying an object and acting upon it such as drinking from a cup. Thus, traditionally theories have stressed that spatial experiences affect low-level cognition, such as perception and action, and cannot influence the processing of the words referring to objects, as this information may be not part of the meaning of the words. However, theories of embodied cognition assume that spatial information not only can be part of concrete word meaning and impact word processing, but also provided the basis of abstract words and concepts. There is converging evidence that spatial representations play a vital role in understanding words. To date, word-space congruent effect has been taken as critical evidence for embodied view. It refers to the phenomenon that performance is better when the spatial meaning of a word is congruent with the spatial location of the target than it is not. This effect has been found with words denoting objects with a typically spatial location (e.g., moon=up), and words denoting abstract and neural entities with a metaphorically spatial location in space (e.g., happy=up). Despite the compelling evidence, it remains unclear:(1) whether the word-space effect is dependent on top-down control induced by task demands;(2) whether the word-space effect for concrete and abstract involves the same cognitive and neural mechanisms;(3) whether the word-space effect reflects the influence of words with the implicitly or metaphorically spatial respresentations on spatial perception, or suggests semantic integration between words and spatial targets.
To determine the condition, difference and nature of word-space congruent effect for both concrete and abstract words, with the help of behavioral and ERP techniques, the present study used the different task (location discrimination vs. identity discrimination) to assess the Word-space congruent effect for object (high concreteness), emotion (low concreteness), power words (moderate concreteness) across a series of experiments. Specifically, we presented participants with cue words with implicit or metaphorical spatial meaning at the center of the screen. After the presentation of the cue words, participants were asked to identify a target letter ("p" or "q") at the top or bottom of the screen (identity discrimination) or were asked to identify the spatial position of the target (location discrimination).
Experiments1demonstrated that response times were faster when the target letter's location was congruent with the typical location of the word's referent (e.g., an upper target following the cue "moon") than it was not. However, this congruent effect was present only when participants were asked to make spatial judgements by moving to the response locations (lb). And no compatible effect was found when participants were asked to make spatial reponses with a a stationary mannr or make identiy judgements (la).This pattern of results suggests that the emergence of word-space effect for object words is contingent on top-down control. In contrast, Experiment2and3found response times were faster when the target letter's location was congruent with the metaphorical location of the emotion and power words (e.g., an upper target following the cue "happy" or "president"). More importantly for the present study, the congruent effects for both emotion and powet words were observed regardless of task types. These findings suggest that the word-space effects for different kinds of words with spatial meaning might be dependent on top-down control in different ways.
Experiment4shown that, althought the the behavioural effect was only marginally significant for object words, the ERP analysis showed larger Nl amplitudes for congruent trials (i.e., the target letter's location was congruent with the typical location of the word's referent) and larger P3amplitudes for incongruent trials. The present study extended previous studies by showing that the perception of object words could affect the processing of subsequent spatial stimuli at multiple stages (i.e., sensory processing and higher level cognitive processing. Experiment5demonstrated that, besides the significant behavioural effect for emotion-words, the ERP analysis showed larger P1and P3amplitudes for congruent trials (i.e., the target letter's location was congruent with the metaphorical location of the emotion words) and larger N1amplitudes for incongruent trials. Consitent with the behavioural effect for emotion words, the word-space effect was again observed in Experiment6, that is, response times were faster when the target letter's location was congruent with the metaphorical location of the power words. Contrary to the consistent behavioural findings, the ERP analysis for power words showed smaller P1and lager N1amplitudes for congruent trials (i.e., the target letter's location was congruent with the metaphorical location of the emotion words) and larger P3amplitudes for incongruent trials. The different pattern of ERP effects might be due to differences in concreteness between emotion words and power words.
In conclusion,(1) the word-space congruent words for object words is dependent on top-down control of task demands, whereas this effects for emotions words and power words are relatively robust, and not contingent on top-down control;(2) the understanding of object words, emotion words and power words could affect the processing of subsequent spatial stimuli at multiple stages (i.e., sensory processing and higher level cognitive processing, but theirs pattern is different;(3) the difference of concreteness between abstract and concrete words could influence activation of spatial information, with more concrete words exhibiting more weaker influences on space.
Taken together, the present study suggests that:firstly, the more concrete the word is, the more dependent on task demands the word-space effect is. Secondly, the differences in the word-space effects for concrete and abstract words may be due to the differences in concreteness of words, regardless of whether these words represent abstract concepts. Thirdly, word understanding modulates the early P1or N1processing of the subsequent target, suggesting the embodied nature of the word-space effect. These findings will contribute to our understanding of language processing, and will benefits language learning for children。
引文
顾艳艳,张志杰.(2012).汉语背景下横纵轴上的心理时间线.心理学报,44(8),1015-1024.
李其维.(2008).“认知革命”与“第二代认知科学”刍议.心理学报,40(12),1304-1327.
李恒.(2013).空间偏向成因研究：理论解释与前景展望.心理科学进展,21(4),637-642.
刘源,梁南元,王德进,张社英,杨铁鹰,揭春雨,等.(主编).(1990).现代汉语常用词词频词典.北京：宇航出版社.
曲方炳,殷融,钟元,叶浩生.(2012).语言理解中的动作知觉：基于具身认知的视角.心理科学进展,20(6),834-842.
徐雷,唐丹丹,&陈安涛.(2012).主动性和反应性认知控制的权衡机制及影响因素.心理科学进展,20(007),1012-1022.
叶浩生.(2010).具身认知：认知心理学的新取向.心理科学进展,18(5),705-710.
叶浩生.(2011a).有关具身认知思潮的理论心理学思考.心理学报,43(5),589-598.
叶浩生.(2011b).西方心理学中的具身认知研究思潮.华中师范大学学服,50(4),153-160.
叶浩生.(2013).认知与身体：理论心理学的视角.心理学服,45(4),481-488.
殷融,曲方炳,叶浩生.(2012).具身概念表征的研究及理论评述.心理科学进展,20(9),1372-1381.
张恩涛,方杰,林文毅,罗俊龙.(2013)).抽象概念的具身认知观.心理科学进展,21(3),429-436.
张丽,陈雪梅,王琦,李红.(2012).身体形式和社会环境对SNARC效应的影响：基于具身认知观的理解.心理学报,44(10),1309-1317.
Adorni, R.,& Proverbio, A. M. (2012). The neural manifestation of the word concreteness effect:An electrical neuroimaging study. Neuropsychologia,50, 880-891.
Andrews, M., Vigliocco, G.,& Vinson, D. (2009). Integrating experiential and distributional data to learn semantic representations. Psychological Review,116, 463-498.
Ansorge, U., Khalid, S.,& Konig, P. (2013). Space-valence priming with subliminal and supraliminal words. Frontiers in psychology,4.
Ansorge, U.,& Wuehr, P. (2004). A response-discrimination account of the Simon effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Human Perception and Performance,30,365-377.
Barber, H. A., Otten, L. J., Kousta, S. T.,& Vigliocco, G. (2013). Concreteness in word processing:ERP and behavioral effects in a lexical decision task. Brain and language,125(1),47-53.
Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(4),577-660.
Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology,59, 617-645.
Barsalou, L. W. (2011). Simulation, situated conceptualization, and prediction. In M. Bar (Ed.), Predictions in the brain:Using our past to generate a future, (pp. 27-39). New York, NY US:Oxford University Press.
Barsalou, L. W., Simmons, W. K., Barbey, A. K.,& Wilson, C. D. (2003). Grounding conceptual knowledge in modality-specific systems. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,7(2),84-91.
Barsalou, L. W.,& Wiemer-Hastings, K. (2005). Situating abstract concepts. In D. Pecher & R. A. Zwaan (Eds.), Grounding cognition:The role of perception and action in memory, language, and thinking (pp.129-163). New York:Cambridge University Press
Bergen, B. K., Lindsay, S., Matlock, T.,& Narayanan, S. (2007). Spatial and linguistic aspects of visual imagery in sentence comprehension. Cognitive Science,31(5), 733-764.
Binder, J. R.,& Desai, R. H. (2011). The neurobiology of semantic memory. Trends in cognitive sciences,15(11),527-536.
Borghi, A. M., Glenberg, A. M.,& Kaschak, M. P. (2004). Putting words in perspective. Memory & Cognition,32(6):863-873.
Boroditsky, L. (2000). Metaphoric structuring:Understanding time through spatial metaphors. Cognition,75,1-28.
Bradley, M. M.,& Lang, P. J. (2000). Emotion and motivation. Handbook of psychophysiology,2,602-642.
Brookshire, G, Ivry, R.,& Casasanto, D. (2010). Modulation of motor-meaning congruity effects for valenced words. In S. Ohlsson & R. Catrambone (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Austin:TX, Cognitive Science Society.
Casasanto, D. (2009). Embodiment of abstract concepts:good and bad in right-and left-handers. Journal of Experimental Psychology:General,138(3),351-367.
Casasanto, D.,& Dijkstra, K. (2010). Motor action and emotional memory. Cognition,115(1),179-185.
Chasteen, A. L., Burdzy, D. C.,& Pratt, J. (2010). Thinking of god moves attention. Neuropsychologia,48(2),627-630.
Chen, M.,& Bargh, J. A. (1999). Consequences of automatic evaluation:Immediate behavioral predispositions to approach or avoid the stimulus. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,25,215-224.
Cohen Kadosh, R.,& Walsh, V. (2009). Numerical representation in the parietal lobes: Abstract or not abstract? Behavioral and brain sciences,32(3-4),313-328.
Collins, A. M.,& Loftus, E. F. (1975). A Spreading-Activation Theory of Semantic Processing. Psychological Review,82 (6),407-428.
Collins, A. M.& Quillian, M. R. (1969) Retrieval time from semantic memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,8,240-247.
Crawford, L. E. (2009). Conceptual metaphors of affect. Emotion Review,1(2), 129-139.
Dehaene, S., Bossini, S.,& Giraux, P. (1993). The mental representation of parity and number magnitude. Journal of Experimental Psychology:General,122, 371-396.
de la Vega, I., de Filippis, M., Lachmair, M., Dudschig, C,& Kaup, B. (2012). Emotional valence and physical space:Limits of interaction. Journal of experimental psychology:human perception and performance,38(2),375.
de la Vega, I., Dudschig, C., De Filippis, M., Lachmair, M.,& Kaup, B. (2013). Keep your hands crossed:The valence-by-lefl/right interaction is related to hand, not side, in an incongruent hand-response key assignment.Acta psychologica,142(2), 273-277.
Digiacomo, M. R., Marco-Pallares, J., Flores, A. B.,& Gomez, C. M. (2008). Wavelet analysis of the EEG during the neurocognitive evaluation of invalidly cued targets. Brain research,1234,94-103.
Dudschig, C., Lachmair, M., de la Vega, I., De Filippis, M.,& Kaup, B. (2012). From top to bottom:Spatial shifts of attention caused by linguistic stimuli. Cognitive Processing,13, S151-S154.
Dudschig, C., Souman, J., Lachmair, M., de la Vega, I.,& Kaup, B. (2013). Reading "Sun" and Looking Up:The Influence of Language on Saccadic Eye Movements in the Vertical Dimension. PLoS ONE 8(2):e56872. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0056872
Eimer, M.,& Schlaghecken, F. (1998). Effects of masked stimuli on motor activation: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence.Journal of Experimental Psychology:Human Perception and Performance,24,1737-1747.
Endress, A. D.,& Potter, M. C. (2012). Early conceptual and linguistic processes operate in independent channels. Psychological science,23(3),235-245.
Estes, Z., Verges, M.,& Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Head Up, Foot Down:Object Words Orient Attention to the Objects' Typical Location. Psychological Science,19(2), 93-97.
Feigenson, L., Dehaene, S.,& Spelke, E. (2004). Core systems of number. Trends in cognitive sciences,8(7),307-314.
Fischer, M. H.,& Zwaan, R. A. (2008). Embodied language:a review of the role of the motor system in language comprehension. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,61(6),825-850.
Fodor, J. A. (1983). The Modularity of Mind:An Essay on Faculty Psychology. London:MIT Press.
Folk, C. L., Remington, R. W.,& Johnston, J. C. (1992). Involuntary covert orienting is contingent on attentional control settings. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance,18,1030-1044.
Folk, C. L., Remington, R. W.,& Wright, J. H. (1994). The structure of attentional control:Contingent attentional capture by apparent motion, abrupt onset, and color. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Human Perception and Performance, 20(2),317-329.
Friederici, A. D. (2012). The cortical language circuit:from auditory perception to sentence comprehension. Trends in cognitive sciences,16(5),262-268.
Fu, S., Caggiano, D. M., Greenwood, P. M.,& Parasuraman, R. (2005). Event-related potentials reveal dissociable mechanisms for orienting and focusing visuospatial attention. Cognitive Brain Research,23(2),341-353.
Gabay, S., Leibovich, T., Henik, A.,& Gronau, N. (2013). Size before numbers: Conceptual size primes numerical value. Cognition,129(1),18-23.
Gallese, V.,& Lakoff, G (2005). The brain's concepts:The role of the sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology,22,455-479.
Gentner, D., Bowdle, B., Wolff, P.,& Boronat, C. (2001). Metaphor is like analogy. In D. Gentner, K. J. Holyoak,& B. N. Kokinov (Eds.), The analogical mind: Perspectives from cognitive science (pp.199-253). Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
Gevers, W., Lammertyn, J., Notebaert, W., Verguts, T.,& Fias, W. (2006). Automatic response activation of implicit spatial information:Evidence from the SNARC effect. Acta Psychologica,122,221-233.
Glenberg, A.,& Kaschak, M. (2002). Grounding language in action. Psychonomic Bulletin& Review,9,558-565.
Goldman, A.,& de Vignemont, F. (2009). Is social cognition embodied? Trends in Cognitive Sciences,13(4),154-159
Gomez, C. M.,& Flores, A. (2011). A neurophysiological evaluation of a cognitive cycle in humans. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews,35(3),452-461.
Gomez, C. M., Flores, A., Digiacomo, M. R., Ledesma, A.,& Gonzalez-Rosa, J. (2008). P3a and P3b components associated to the neurocognitive evaluation of invalidly cued targets. Neuroscience letters,430(2),181-185.
Gozli, D. G, Chasteen, A. L.,& Pratt, J. (2012). The Cost and Benefit of Implicit Spatial Cues for Visual Attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology:General. Advance online publication, doi:10.1037/a0030362.
Gozli, D. G, Chow, A., Chasteen, A. L.,& Pratt, J. (2013). Valence and vertical space: Saccade trajectory deviations reveal metaphorical spatial activation. Visual Cognition, (ahead-of-print),1-19.
Gullick, M. M., Mitra, P.,& Coch, D. (2013). Imagining the truth and the moon:An electrophysiological study of abstract and concrete word processing. Psychophysiology,50(5),431-440.
Hale, S. C. (1988). Spacetime and the abstract/concrete distinction. Philosophical Studies,53,85-102.
Handy, T. C.,& Mangun, G. R. (2000). Attention and spatial selection: Electrophysiological evidence for modulation by perceptual load. Perception & Psychophysics,62(1),175-186.
Harnad, S. (1990). The symbol grounding problem. Physica D 42,335-346.
Hasbroucq, T., Kornblum, S.,& Osman, A. (1988). A new look at reaction time estimates of interhemispheric transmission time. European Bulletin of Cognitive Psychology,8(3),207-221.
Henik, A., Leibovich, T., Naparstek, S., Diesendruck, L.,& Rubinsten, O. (2011). Quantities, amounts, and the numerical core system. Frontiers in human neuroscience,5.
Holmes, K. J.,& Lourenco, S. F. (2012). Orienting numbers in mental space: Horizontal organization trumps vertical. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,65,1044-1051.
Hommel, B. (1996). S-R compatibility effects without response uncertainty. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology:Human Experimental Psychology,49(A), 546-571.
Hommel, B. (1997). Toward an action-concept model of stimulus-response compatibility. In B. Hommel & W. Prinz (Eds.), Theoretical issues in stimulus-response compatibility (pp.281-320). Amsterdam:Elsevier.
Hommel, B. (2011). The Simon effect as tool and heuristic. Acta Psychologica,136, 189-202.
Hommel, B., Musseler, J., Aschersleben, G,& Prinz, W. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC):A framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences,24,849-937.
Hopfinger, J. B.,& Mangun, G R. (1998).Reflexive attention modulates processing of visual stimuli in human extrastriate cortex. Psychological Science,9,441-447.
Hopfinger, J. B.,& Mangun, G. R. (2001). Tracking the influence of reflexive attention on sensory and cognitive processing. Cognitive, Affective,& Behavioral Neuroscience,1(1),56-65.
Hopfinger, J. B.,& Ries, A. J. (2005). Automatic versus contingent mechanisms of sensory-driven neural biasing and reflexive attention. Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 17(8),1341-1352.
Hopfinger, J. B.,& West, V. M. (2006). Interactions between endogenous and exogenous attention on cortical visual processing. Neurolmage,31(2),774-789.
Ito, Y,& Hatta, T. (2004). Spatial structure of quantitative representation of numbers: Evidence from the SNARC effect. Memory & Cognition,32(4),662-673.
Kaup, B., De Filippis, M., Lachmair, M., de la Vega, I.,& Dudschig, C. (2012). When up-words meet down-sentences:evidence for word-or sentence-based compatibility effects? Cognitive Processing,13, S203-S207
Keus, I. M.,& Schwarz, W. (2005). Searching for the functional locus of the SNARC effect:Evidence for a response-related origin. Memory & Cognition,33, 681-695.
Kiefer, M.,& Martens, U. (2010). Attentional sensitization of unconscious cognition: Task sets modulate subsequent masked semantic priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology:General,139 (3),464-489.
Kiefer, M.,& Pulvermuller, F. (2012). Conceptual representations in mind and brain: Theoretical developments, current evidence and future directions. Cortex,48(7), 805-825.
Klimesch, W. (2011). Evoked alpha and early access to the knowledge system:the PI inhibition timing hypothesis. Brain research,1408,52-71.
Kong, F. (2013). Space-valence associations depend on handedness:evidence from a bimanual output task. Psychological research,1-7.
Kousta, S.-T., Vigliocco, G, Vinson, D., Andrews, M.,& Del Campo, E. (2011). The representation of abstract words:Why emotion matters. Journal of Experimental Psychology:General,140,14-34.
Lachmair, M., Dudschig, C., De Filippis, M., de la Vega, I.,& Kaup, B. (2011). Root versus roof:Automatic activation of location information during word processing. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,18,1180-1188.
Lachmair, M., Dudschig, C., de la Vega, I.,& Kaup, B. (2014). Relating numeric cognition and language processing:Do numbers and words share a common representational platform? Acta psychologica,148,107-114.
Lakens, D. (2011). High skies and oceans deep:Polarity benefits or mental simulation? Frontiers in Cognition,2,21. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00021
Lakens, D. (2012). Polarity correspondence in metaphor congruency effects: Structural overlap predicts categorization times for bipolar concepts presented in vertical space. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning, Memory, and Cognition,38,726-736.
Lakoff, G.,& Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G.,& Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh. New York:Basic Books.
Lavender, T.,& Hommel, B. (2007). Affect and action:Towards an event-coding account. Cognition and Emotion,21(6),1270-1296.
Levy-Drori, S.,& Henik, A. (2006). Concreteness and context availability in lexical decision tasks. The American Journal of Psychology,119,45-65.
Louwerse, M. M. (2008). Embodied relations are encoded in language. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,15(4),838-844.
Louwerse, M. M. (2010). Symbol interdependency in symbolic and embodied cognition. Topics in Cognitive Science (TopiCS). DOI: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2010.01106.x.
Louwerse, M. M. (2011). Stormy seas and cloudy skies:Conceptual processing is (still) linguistic and perceptual. Frontiers in Psychology,2,150.
Louwerse, M. M.,& Jeuniaux, P. (2010). The linguistic and embodied nature of conceptual processing. Cognition,114(1),96-104.
Lu, A., Zhang, H., He, G, Zheng, D.,& Hodges, B. H. (2013). Looking Up to Others: Social Status, Chinese Honorifics, and Spatial Attention. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, Advance online publication, doi:10.1037/cep0000008
Luck, S. J. (1995). Multiple mechanism of visual-spatial attention:Recent evidence from human electrophysiology. Behavioral Brain Research,71,113-123.
Luck, S. J., Hillyard, S. A., Mouloua, M., Woldorff, M. G, Clark, V. P.,& Hawkins, H. L. (1994). Effects of spatial cuing on luminance detectability:Psychophysical and electrophysiological evidence for early selection. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Human Perception and Performance,20,887-904.
Luck, S. J., Woodman, G F.,& Vogel, E. K. (2000). Event-related potential studies of attention. Trends in cognitive sciences,4(11),432-440.
Mahon, B. Z., Anzellotti, S., Schwarzbach, J., Zampini, M.,& Caramazza, A. (2009). Category-specific organization in the human brain does not require visual experience. Neuron,63(3),397-405.
Mahon, B. Z.,& Caramazza, A. (2008). A critical look at the embodied cognition hypothesis and a new proposal for grounding conceptual content. Journal of Physiology, Paris,102(1-3),59-70.
Mangun, G. R,& Hillyard, S. A. (1991). Modulations of sensory-evoked brain potentials indicate changes in perceptual processing during visual-spatial priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Human Perception and Performance,17,1057-1074.
Marmolejo-Ramos, E, Elosua, M. R., Yamada, Y., Hamm, N. F.,& Noguchi, K. (2013). Appraisal of Space Words and Allocation of Emotion Words in Bodily Space. PloS one,8(12), e81688.
Marzi, C. A., Bisiacchi, P.,& Nicoletti, R. (1991). Is interhemispheric transfer of visuomotor information asymmetric? Evidence from a meta-analysis. Neuropsychologia,29(12),1163-1177.
Matsumoto, K.,& Tanaka, K. (2004). Conflict and cognitive control. Science,303, 969-970.
Milhau, A., Brouillet, T.,& Brouillet, D. (2013). Biases in evaluation of neutral words due to motor compatibility effect. Actapsychologica,144(2),243-249.
Meier, B. P., Hauser, D. J., Robinson, M. D., Friesen, C. K.,& Schjeldahl, K. (2007). What's'up'with God? Vertical space as a representation of the divine. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,93(5),699-710.
Meier, B. P., Hauser, D. J.,& Toburen, T. M. (2008). Hearts of gold atop dirty soles: How body spatial location guides affective experience. In annual meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Meier, B. P.,& Robinson, M. D. (2004). Why the sunny side is up:Associations between affect and vertical position. Psychological Science,15,243-247.
Meier, B. P., Robinson, M. D.,& Caven, A. J. (2008). Why a big mac is a good mac: Associations between affect and size. Basic and Applied Social Psychology,30, 46-55.
Meier, B. P., Robinson, M. D.,& Clore, G. L. (2004). Why good guys wear white: Automatic inferences about stimulus valence based on brightness. Psychological Science,15(2),82-87.
Meier, B. P., Robinson, M. D., Crawford, L. E.,& Ahlvers, W. J. (2007). When "light" and "dark" thoughts become light and dark responses:Affect biases brightness judgments. Emotion,7(2),366-376.
Meier, B. P., Sellbom, M.,& Wygant, D. B. (2007). Failing to take the moral high ground:Psychopathy and the vertical representation of morality. Personality and Individual Differences,43,757-767.
Memelink, J.,& Hommel, B. (2011). Intentional weighting:a basic principle in cognitive control. Psychological Research. DOI 10.1007/s00426-012-0435-y
Meteyard, L., Rodriguez, S., Bahrami, B.,& Vigliocco, G (2012). Coming of age:A review of embodiment and the neuroscience of semantics. Cortex,48(7), 788-804.
Minsky, M. (1980). K-lines:A theory of memory. Cognitive Science,4,117-130.
Negri, G A. L., Rumiati, R. I., Zadini, A., Ukmar, M., Mahon, B. Z.,& Caramazza, A. (2007). What is the role of motor simulation in action and object recognition? Evidence from apraxia. Cognitive Neuropsychology,24(8),795-816.
Neuhaus, A. H., Urbanek, C., Opgen-Rhein, C., Hahn, E., Ta, T. M. T., Koehler, S.,. & Dettling, M. (2010). Event-related potentials associated with Attention Network Test. International Journal of Psychophysiology,76(2),72-79.
Norman, D. A. (1993) Things that makes us smart. Addison-Wesley.
Ouellet, M., Santiago, J., Funes, M. J.,& Lupianez, J. (2010). Thinking about the future moves attention to the right. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Human Perception and Performance,36(1),17-24.
Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. New York:Holt. Rinchart and Winston.
Paivio A (2007) Mind and its evolution:a dual coding theoretical approach. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ
Paivio, A. (2010). Dual coding theory and mental lexicon. The Mental Lexicon,5(2), 205-230.
Pecher, D.,& Boot, I. (2011). Numbers in space:differences between concrete and abstract situations. Frontiers in psychology,2.
Pecher, D., Boot, I.,& Van Dantzig, S. (2011). Abstract concepts:Sensory-motor grounding, metaphors, and beyond. In B. Ross (Ed.). The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, vol.54 (pp.217-248). Burlington:Academic Press.
Pecher, D., van Dantzig, S., Boot, I., Zanolie, K.,& Huber, D. E. (2010). Congruency between word position and meaning is caused by task induced spatial attention. Frontiers in Psychology,1:30.
Pecher, D., van Dantzig, S., Zwaan, R. A.,& Zeelenberg, R. (2009). Language comprehenders retain implied shape and orientation of objects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,62,1108-1114.
Piaget, J. (1927/1969). The child's conception of time. New York:Ballantine.
Posner, M. I.,& Snyder, C. R. R. (1975). Attention and cognitive control. In R. L. Solso (Ed.), Information processing and cognition:The Loyola Symposium (pp. 55-85). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.
Price, C. J. (2012). A review and synthesis of the first 20years of PET and fMRI studies of heard speech, spoken language and reading. Neuroimage,62(2), 816-847.
Proctor, R. W.,& Cho, Y. S. (2006). Polarity correspondence:A general principle for performance of speeded binary classification tasks. Psychological Bulletin,132, 416-442.
Pulvermuller, F.,& Fadiga, L. (2010). Active perception:sensorimotor circuits as a cortical basis for language. Nature Reviews Neuroscience,11(5),351-360.
Quadflieg, S., Etzel, J. A., Gazzola, V., Keysers, C., Schubert, T. W., Waiter, G D.,& Macrae, C. N. (2011). Puddles, parties, and professors:Linking word categorization to neural patterns of visuospatial coding. Journal of cognitive neuroscience,23(10),2636-2649.
Rommers, J., Meyer, A. S.,& Huettig, F. (2013). Object shape and orientation do not routinely influence performance during language processing. Psychological science,24(11),2218-2225.
Sadoski, M.,& Paivio, A. (2004). A dual coding theoretical model of reading. Theoretical models and processes of reading,5,1329-1362.
Santiago, J., Lupanez, J., P6rez, E.,& Funes, M. J. (2007). Time (also) flies from left to right. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,14(3),512-516.
Santiago, J., Ouellet, M., Roman, A.,& Valenzuela, J. (2012). Attentional factors in conceptual congruency. Cognitive Science,35(2),381-398.
Schank, R. C. (1972). Conceptual dependency:A theory of natural language understanding. Cognitive Psychology,3,552-631.
Schank, R. C.,& Abelson, R. P. (1977). Script, plan, goals, and understanding. Lawrence Erlbaum
Schneider, W.,& Shiffrin, R. M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing:1. Detection, search, and attention. Psychological Review,84,1-66.
Schubert, T. W. (2005). Your highness:Vertical positions as perceptual symbols of power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,89,1-21.
Schwarz, W.,& Keus, I. M. (2004). Moving the eyes along the mental number line: Comparing SNARC effects with saccadic and manual responses. Perception & Psychophysics,66,651-664.
Searle, J. R. (1980). Minds, brains, and programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3(3). 417-457.
Sell, A. J.,& Kaschak, M. P. (2011). Processing time shifts affects the execution of motor responses. Brain and language,117(1),39-44.
Setic, M.,& Domijan, D. (2007). The influence of vertical spatial orientation on property verification. Language and Cognitive Processes,22,297-312.
Silton, R. L., Heller, W., Towers, D. N., Engels, A. S., Spielberg, J. M., Edgar, J. C., Sass. S. M.,& Miller, G. A. (2010). The time course of activity in dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and anterior cingulate cortex during top-down attentional control. Neuroimage,50(3),1292-1302.
Simmons, W. K., Hamann, S. B., Harenski, C. L., Hu, X. P.,& Barsalou, L. W. (2008). fMRI evidence for word association and situated simulation in conceptual processing. Journal of Physiology-Paris,102(1),106-119.
Simon, H. A. (1979). Information Processing Models of Cognition. Annual Review of Psychology,30,363-396.
Simon, J. R.,& Rudell, A. P. (1967). Auditory S-R compatibility:The effect of an irrelevant cue on information processing. Journal of Applied Psychology,51, 300-304.
Simon, J. R.,& Small, A. M., Jr. (1969). Processing auditory information: Interference from an irrelevant cue. Journal of Applied Psychology,53(5), 433-435.
Smith, E. E., Shoben, E. J.,& Rips, L. J. (1974). Structure and process in semantic memory:A featural model for semantic decisions. Psychological Review,81, 214-241.
Sturmer, B., Leuthold, H., Soetens, E., Schroter, H.,& Sommer, W. (2002). Control over location-based response-activation in the Simon task:Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Human Perception and Performance,28,1345-1363.
Thornton, T., Loetscher, T., Yates, M. J.,& Nicholls, M. E. R. (2012). The Highs and Lows of the Interaction Between Word Meaning and Space. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Human Perception and Performance. Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/a0030467
Tschentscher, N., Hauk, O., Fischer, M. H.,& Pulvermiiller, F. (2012). You can count on the motor cortex:finger counting habits modulate motor cortex activation evoked by numbers. Neuroimage,59(4),3139-3148.
Tucker, M.,& Ellis, R. (1998). On the Relations Between Seen Objects and Components of Potential Actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology.Human Perception and Performance,24,830-846.
Tucker, M.,& Ellis, R. (2004). Action priming by briefly presented objects. Acta psychologica,116(2),185-203.
Tulving, E. (1972). Organization of memory. New York:Academic Press.
Vainio, L. (2009). Interrupted object-based updating of reach program leads to a negative compatibility effect. Journal of motor behavior,41(4),305-316.
van Dam, W. O., van Dijk, M., Bekkering, H.,& Rueschemeyer, S.-A. (2012). Flexibility in embodied lexical-semantic representations. Human Brain Mapping, 33,2322-2333.
Verges, M.,& Duffy, S. (2009). Spatial representations elicit dual-coding effects in mental imagery. Cognitive Science,33,1157-1172.
Verleger, R., Jaskowski, P., Aydemir, A., Lubbe, R. H. V. D.,& Groen, M. (2004). Qualitative differences between conscious and nonconscious processing? On inverse priming induced by masked arrows. Journal of Experimental Psychology-General,133(4),494-514.
Versa, A. H.,& Simon, H. A. (1993). Situated Action:A Symbolic Interpretation. Cognitive science,17,7-48.
Vigliocco, G, Meteyard, L., Andrews, M.,& Kousta, S. (2009). Toward a theory of semantic representation. Language and Cognition,1(2),219-247.
Vogel, E. K.,& Luck, S. J. (2000). The visual Nl component as an index of a discrimination process. Psychophysiology,37,190-203.
Walsh, V. (2003). A theory of magnitude:Common cortical metrics of time, space and quantity. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,7,483-488.
Wang, J., Conder, J. A., Blitzer, D. N.,& Shinkareva, S. V. (2010). Neural representation of abstract and concrete concepts:A meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies. Human brain mapping,31(10),1459-1468.
Wassenburg, S. I.,& Zwaan, R. A. (2010). Readers routinely represent implied object rotation:The role of visual experience. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,63,1665-1670.
Welcome, S. E., Paivio, A., McRae, K.,& Joanisse, M. F. (2011). An electrophysiological study of task demands on concreteness effects:Evidence for dual coding theory. Experimental Brain Research,212,347-358. doi:10.1007/s00221-011-2734-8
West, W. C.,& Holcomb, P. J. (2000). Imaginal, semantic, and surfacelevel processing of concrete and abstract words:An electrophysiological investigation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,12,1024-103.
Witt, J. K., Kemmerer, D., Linkenauger, S. A.,& Culham, J. (2010). A functional role for motor simulation in identifying tools. Psychological Science,21(9), 1215-1219.
Wuehr, P.,& Biebl, R. (2011). The role of working memory in spatial S-R correspondence effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Human Perception and Performance,37(2),442-454.
Zanolie, K., Van Dantzig, S., Boot, I., Wijnen, J., Schubert, T. W., Giessner, S. R.,& Pecher, D. (2012). Mighty metaphors:Behavioral and ERP evidence that power shifts attention on a vertical dimension. Brain and Cognition,78,50-58.
Zwaan, R. A. (2004). The Immersed Experiencer:Toward an Embodied Theory of Language Comprehension. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation:Advances in research and theory, Vol.44. (pp.35-62). New York, NY US:Elsevier Science.
Zwaan, R. A. (2014). Replications Should Be Performed With Power and Precision A Response to Rommers, Meyer, and Huettig (2013)Psychological science,25(1), 305-307.
Zwaan, R. A.,& Pecher, D. (2012). Revisiting mental simulation in language comprehension:Six replication attempts. PLoSONE,7(12), e51382. Retrieved from http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/j ournal.pone.0051382
Zwaan, R. A.,& Yaxley, R. H. (2003). Spatial iconicity affects semantic relatedness judgments. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,10(4),954-958.
李其维.(2008).“认知革命”与“第二代认知科学”刍议.心理学报,40(12),1304-1327.
李恒.(2013).空间偏向成因研究：理论解释与前景展望.心理科学进展,21(4),637-642.
刘源,梁南元,王德进,张社英,杨铁鹰,揭春雨,等.(主编).(1990).现代汉语常用词词频词典.北京：宇航出版社.
曲方炳,殷融,钟元,叶浩生.(2012).语言理解中的动作知觉：基于具身认知的视角.心理科学进展,20(6),834-842.
徐雷,唐丹丹,&陈安涛.(2012).主动性和反应性认知控制的权衡机制及影响因素.心理科学进展,20(007),1012-1022.
叶浩生.(2010).具身认知：认知心理学的新取向.心理科学进展,18(5),705-710.
叶浩生.(2011a).有关具身认知思潮的理论心理学思考.心理学报,43(5),589-598.
叶浩生.(2011b).西方心理学中的具身认知研究思潮.华中师范大学学服,50(4),153-160.
叶浩生.(2013).认知与身体：理论心理学的视角.心理学服,45(4),481-488.
殷融,曲方炳,叶浩生.(2012).具身概念表征的研究及理论评述.心理科学进展,20(9),1372-1381.
张恩涛,方杰,林文毅,罗俊龙.(2013)).抽象概念的具身认知观.心理科学进展,21(3),429-436.
张丽,陈雪梅,王琦,李红.(2012).身体形式和社会环境对SNARC效应的影响：基于具身认知观的理解.心理学报,44(10),1309-1317.
Adorni, R.,& Proverbio, A. M. (2012). The neural manifestation of the word concreteness effect:An electrical neuroimaging study. Neuropsychologia,50, 880-891.
Andrews, M., Vigliocco, G.,& Vinson, D. (2009). Integrating experiential and distributional data to learn semantic representations. Psychological Review,116, 463-498.
Ansorge, U., Khalid, S.,& Konig, P. (2013). Space-valence priming with subliminal and supraliminal words. Frontiers in psychology,4.
Ansorge, U.,& Wuehr, P. (2004). A response-discrimination account of the Simon effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Human Perception and Performance,30,365-377.
Barber, H. A., Otten, L. J., Kousta, S. T.,& Vigliocco, G. (2013). Concreteness in word processing:ERP and behavioral effects in a lexical decision task. Brain and language,125(1),47-53.
Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(4),577-660.
Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology,59, 617-645.
Barsalou, L. W. (2011). Simulation, situated conceptualization, and prediction. In M. Bar (Ed.), Predictions in the brain:Using our past to generate a future, (pp. 27-39). New York, NY US:Oxford University Press.
Barsalou, L. W., Simmons, W. K., Barbey, A. K.,& Wilson, C. D. (2003). Grounding conceptual knowledge in modality-specific systems. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,7(2),84-91.
Barsalou, L. W.,& Wiemer-Hastings, K. (2005). Situating abstract concepts. In D. Pecher & R. A. Zwaan (Eds.), Grounding cognition:The role of perception and action in memory, language, and thinking (pp.129-163). New York:Cambridge University Press
Bergen, B. K., Lindsay, S., Matlock, T.,& Narayanan, S. (2007). Spatial and linguistic aspects of visual imagery in sentence comprehension. Cognitive Science,31(5), 733-764.
Binder, J. R.,& Desai, R. H. (2011). The neurobiology of semantic memory. Trends in cognitive sciences,15(11),527-536.
Borghi, A. M., Glenberg, A. M.,& Kaschak, M. P. (2004). Putting words in perspective. Memory & Cognition,32(6):863-873.
Boroditsky, L. (2000). Metaphoric structuring:Understanding time through spatial metaphors. Cognition,75,1-28.
Bradley, M. M.,& Lang, P. J. (2000). Emotion and motivation. Handbook of psychophysiology,2,602-642.
Brookshire, G, Ivry, R.,& Casasanto, D. (2010). Modulation of motor-meaning congruity effects for valenced words. In S. Ohlsson & R. Catrambone (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Austin:TX, Cognitive Science Society.
Casasanto, D. (2009). Embodiment of abstract concepts:good and bad in right-and left-handers. Journal of Experimental Psychology:General,138(3),351-367.
Casasanto, D.,& Dijkstra, K. (2010). Motor action and emotional memory. Cognition,115(1),179-185.
Chasteen, A. L., Burdzy, D. C.,& Pratt, J. (2010). Thinking of god moves attention. Neuropsychologia,48(2),627-630.
Chen, M.,& Bargh, J. A. (1999). Consequences of automatic evaluation:Immediate behavioral predispositions to approach or avoid the stimulus. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,25,215-224.
Cohen Kadosh, R.,& Walsh, V. (2009). Numerical representation in the parietal lobes: Abstract or not abstract? Behavioral and brain sciences,32(3-4),313-328.
Collins, A. M.,& Loftus, E. F. (1975). A Spreading-Activation Theory of Semantic Processing. Psychological Review,82 (6),407-428.
Collins, A. M.& Quillian, M. R. (1969) Retrieval time from semantic memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,8,240-247.
Crawford, L. E. (2009). Conceptual metaphors of affect. Emotion Review,1(2), 129-139.
Dehaene, S., Bossini, S.,& Giraux, P. (1993). The mental representation of parity and number magnitude. Journal of Experimental Psychology:General,122, 371-396.
de la Vega, I., de Filippis, M., Lachmair, M., Dudschig, C,& Kaup, B. (2012). Emotional valence and physical space:Limits of interaction. Journal of experimental psychology:human perception and performance,38(2),375.
de la Vega, I., Dudschig, C., De Filippis, M., Lachmair, M.,& Kaup, B. (2013). Keep your hands crossed:The valence-by-lefl/right interaction is related to hand, not side, in an incongruent hand-response key assignment.Acta psychologica,142(2), 273-277.
Digiacomo, M. R., Marco-Pallares, J., Flores, A. B.,& Gomez, C. M. (2008). Wavelet analysis of the EEG during the neurocognitive evaluation of invalidly cued targets. Brain research,1234,94-103.
Dudschig, C., Lachmair, M., de la Vega, I., De Filippis, M.,& Kaup, B. (2012). From top to bottom:Spatial shifts of attention caused by linguistic stimuli. Cognitive Processing,13, S151-S154.
Dudschig, C., Souman, J., Lachmair, M., de la Vega, I.,& Kaup, B. (2013). Reading "Sun" and Looking Up:The Influence of Language on Saccadic Eye Movements in the Vertical Dimension. PLoS ONE 8(2):e56872. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0056872
Eimer, M.,& Schlaghecken, F. (1998). Effects of masked stimuli on motor activation: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence.Journal of Experimental Psychology:Human Perception and Performance,24,1737-1747.
Endress, A. D.,& Potter, M. C. (2012). Early conceptual and linguistic processes operate in independent channels. Psychological science,23(3),235-245.
Estes, Z., Verges, M.,& Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Head Up, Foot Down:Object Words Orient Attention to the Objects' Typical Location. Psychological Science,19(2), 93-97.
Feigenson, L., Dehaene, S.,& Spelke, E. (2004). Core systems of number. Trends in cognitive sciences,8(7),307-314.
Fischer, M. H.,& Zwaan, R. A. (2008). Embodied language:a review of the role of the motor system in language comprehension. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,61(6),825-850.
Fodor, J. A. (1983). The Modularity of Mind:An Essay on Faculty Psychology. London:MIT Press.
Folk, C. L., Remington, R. W.,& Johnston, J. C. (1992). Involuntary covert orienting is contingent on attentional control settings. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance,18,1030-1044.
Folk, C. L., Remington, R. W.,& Wright, J. H. (1994). The structure of attentional control:Contingent attentional capture by apparent motion, abrupt onset, and color. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Human Perception and Performance, 20(2),317-329.
Friederici, A. D. (2012). The cortical language circuit:from auditory perception to sentence comprehension. Trends in cognitive sciences,16(5),262-268.
Fu, S., Caggiano, D. M., Greenwood, P. M.,& Parasuraman, R. (2005). Event-related potentials reveal dissociable mechanisms for orienting and focusing visuospatial attention. Cognitive Brain Research,23(2),341-353.
Gabay, S., Leibovich, T., Henik, A.,& Gronau, N. (2013). Size before numbers: Conceptual size primes numerical value. Cognition,129(1),18-23.
Gallese, V.,& Lakoff, G (2005). The brain's concepts:The role of the sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology,22,455-479.
Gentner, D., Bowdle, B., Wolff, P.,& Boronat, C. (2001). Metaphor is like analogy. In D. Gentner, K. J. Holyoak,& B. N. Kokinov (Eds.), The analogical mind: Perspectives from cognitive science (pp.199-253). Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
Gevers, W., Lammertyn, J., Notebaert, W., Verguts, T.,& Fias, W. (2006). Automatic response activation of implicit spatial information:Evidence from the SNARC effect. Acta Psychologica,122,221-233.
Glenberg, A.,& Kaschak, M. (2002). Grounding language in action. Psychonomic Bulletin& Review,9,558-565.
Goldman, A.,& de Vignemont, F. (2009). Is social cognition embodied? Trends in Cognitive Sciences,13(4),154-159
Gomez, C. M.,& Flores, A. (2011). A neurophysiological evaluation of a cognitive cycle in humans. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews,35(3),452-461.
Gomez, C. M., Flores, A., Digiacomo, M. R., Ledesma, A.,& Gonzalez-Rosa, J. (2008). P3a and P3b components associated to the neurocognitive evaluation of invalidly cued targets. Neuroscience letters,430(2),181-185.
Gozli, D. G, Chasteen, A. L.,& Pratt, J. (2012). The Cost and Benefit of Implicit Spatial Cues for Visual Attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology:General. Advance online publication, doi:10.1037/a0030362.
Gozli, D. G, Chow, A., Chasteen, A. L.,& Pratt, J. (2013). Valence and vertical space: Saccade trajectory deviations reveal metaphorical spatial activation. Visual Cognition, (ahead-of-print),1-19.
Gullick, M. M., Mitra, P.,& Coch, D. (2013). Imagining the truth and the moon:An electrophysiological study of abstract and concrete word processing. Psychophysiology,50(5),431-440.
Hale, S. C. (1988). Spacetime and the abstract/concrete distinction. Philosophical Studies,53,85-102.
Handy, T. C.,& Mangun, G. R. (2000). Attention and spatial selection: Electrophysiological evidence for modulation by perceptual load. Perception & Psychophysics,62(1),175-186.
Harnad, S. (1990). The symbol grounding problem. Physica D 42,335-346.
Hasbroucq, T., Kornblum, S.,& Osman, A. (1988). A new look at reaction time estimates of interhemispheric transmission time. European Bulletin of Cognitive Psychology,8(3),207-221.
Henik, A., Leibovich, T., Naparstek, S., Diesendruck, L.,& Rubinsten, O. (2011). Quantities, amounts, and the numerical core system. Frontiers in human neuroscience,5.
Holmes, K. J.,& Lourenco, S. F. (2012). Orienting numbers in mental space: Horizontal organization trumps vertical. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,65,1044-1051.
Hommel, B. (1996). S-R compatibility effects without response uncertainty. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology:Human Experimental Psychology,49(A), 546-571.
Hommel, B. (1997). Toward an action-concept model of stimulus-response compatibility. In B. Hommel & W. Prinz (Eds.), Theoretical issues in stimulus-response compatibility (pp.281-320). Amsterdam:Elsevier.
Hommel, B. (2011). The Simon effect as tool and heuristic. Acta Psychologica,136, 189-202.
Hommel, B., Musseler, J., Aschersleben, G,& Prinz, W. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC):A framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences,24,849-937.
Hopfinger, J. B.,& Mangun, G R. (1998).Reflexive attention modulates processing of visual stimuli in human extrastriate cortex. Psychological Science,9,441-447.
Hopfinger, J. B.,& Mangun, G. R. (2001). Tracking the influence of reflexive attention on sensory and cognitive processing. Cognitive, Affective,& Behavioral Neuroscience,1(1),56-65.
Hopfinger, J. B.,& Ries, A. J. (2005). Automatic versus contingent mechanisms of sensory-driven neural biasing and reflexive attention. Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 17(8),1341-1352.
Hopfinger, J. B.,& West, V. M. (2006). Interactions between endogenous and exogenous attention on cortical visual processing. Neurolmage,31(2),774-789.
Ito, Y,& Hatta, T. (2004). Spatial structure of quantitative representation of numbers: Evidence from the SNARC effect. Memory & Cognition,32(4),662-673.
Kaup, B., De Filippis, M., Lachmair, M., de la Vega, I.,& Dudschig, C. (2012). When up-words meet down-sentences:evidence for word-or sentence-based compatibility effects? Cognitive Processing,13, S203-S207
Keus, I. M.,& Schwarz, W. (2005). Searching for the functional locus of the SNARC effect:Evidence for a response-related origin. Memory & Cognition,33, 681-695.
Kiefer, M.,& Martens, U. (2010). Attentional sensitization of unconscious cognition: Task sets modulate subsequent masked semantic priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology:General,139 (3),464-489.
Kiefer, M.,& Pulvermuller, F. (2012). Conceptual representations in mind and brain: Theoretical developments, current evidence and future directions. Cortex,48(7), 805-825.
Klimesch, W. (2011). Evoked alpha and early access to the knowledge system:the PI inhibition timing hypothesis. Brain research,1408,52-71.
Kong, F. (2013). Space-valence associations depend on handedness:evidence from a bimanual output task. Psychological research,1-7.
Kousta, S.-T., Vigliocco, G, Vinson, D., Andrews, M.,& Del Campo, E. (2011). The representation of abstract words:Why emotion matters. Journal of Experimental Psychology:General,140,14-34.
Lachmair, M., Dudschig, C., De Filippis, M., de la Vega, I.,& Kaup, B. (2011). Root versus roof:Automatic activation of location information during word processing. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,18,1180-1188.
Lachmair, M., Dudschig, C., de la Vega, I.,& Kaup, B. (2014). Relating numeric cognition and language processing:Do numbers and words share a common representational platform? Acta psychologica,148,107-114.
Lakens, D. (2011). High skies and oceans deep:Polarity benefits or mental simulation? Frontiers in Cognition,2,21. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00021
Lakens, D. (2012). Polarity correspondence in metaphor congruency effects: Structural overlap predicts categorization times for bipolar concepts presented in vertical space. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning, Memory, and Cognition,38,726-736.
Lakoff, G.,& Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G.,& Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh. New York:Basic Books.
Lavender, T.,& Hommel, B. (2007). Affect and action:Towards an event-coding account. Cognition and Emotion,21(6),1270-1296.
Levy-Drori, S.,& Henik, A. (2006). Concreteness and context availability in lexical decision tasks. The American Journal of Psychology,119,45-65.
Louwerse, M. M. (2008). Embodied relations are encoded in language. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,15(4),838-844.
Louwerse, M. M. (2010). Symbol interdependency in symbolic and embodied cognition. Topics in Cognitive Science (TopiCS). DOI: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2010.01106.x.
Louwerse, M. M. (2011). Stormy seas and cloudy skies:Conceptual processing is (still) linguistic and perceptual. Frontiers in Psychology,2,150.
Louwerse, M. M.,& Jeuniaux, P. (2010). The linguistic and embodied nature of conceptual processing. Cognition,114(1),96-104.
Lu, A., Zhang, H., He, G, Zheng, D.,& Hodges, B. H. (2013). Looking Up to Others: Social Status, Chinese Honorifics, and Spatial Attention. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, Advance online publication, doi:10.1037/cep0000008
Luck, S. J. (1995). Multiple mechanism of visual-spatial attention:Recent evidence from human electrophysiology. Behavioral Brain Research,71,113-123.
Luck, S. J., Hillyard, S. A., Mouloua, M., Woldorff, M. G, Clark, V. P.,& Hawkins, H. L. (1994). Effects of spatial cuing on luminance detectability:Psychophysical and electrophysiological evidence for early selection. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Human Perception and Performance,20,887-904.
Luck, S. J., Woodman, G F.,& Vogel, E. K. (2000). Event-related potential studies of attention. Trends in cognitive sciences,4(11),432-440.
Mahon, B. Z., Anzellotti, S., Schwarzbach, J., Zampini, M.,& Caramazza, A. (2009). Category-specific organization in the human brain does not require visual experience. Neuron,63(3),397-405.
Mahon, B. Z.,& Caramazza, A. (2008). A critical look at the embodied cognition hypothesis and a new proposal for grounding conceptual content. Journal of Physiology, Paris,102(1-3),59-70.
Mangun, G. R,& Hillyard, S. A. (1991). Modulations of sensory-evoked brain potentials indicate changes in perceptual processing during visual-spatial priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Human Perception and Performance,17,1057-1074.
Marmolejo-Ramos, E, Elosua, M. R., Yamada, Y., Hamm, N. F.,& Noguchi, K. (2013). Appraisal of Space Words and Allocation of Emotion Words in Bodily Space. PloS one,8(12), e81688.
Marzi, C. A., Bisiacchi, P.,& Nicoletti, R. (1991). Is interhemispheric transfer of visuomotor information asymmetric? Evidence from a meta-analysis. Neuropsychologia,29(12),1163-1177.
Matsumoto, K.,& Tanaka, K. (2004). Conflict and cognitive control. Science,303, 969-970.
Milhau, A., Brouillet, T.,& Brouillet, D. (2013). Biases in evaluation of neutral words due to motor compatibility effect. Actapsychologica,144(2),243-249.
Meier, B. P., Hauser, D. J., Robinson, M. D., Friesen, C. K.,& Schjeldahl, K. (2007). What's'up'with God? Vertical space as a representation of the divine. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,93(5),699-710.
Meier, B. P., Hauser, D. J.,& Toburen, T. M. (2008). Hearts of gold atop dirty soles: How body spatial location guides affective experience. In annual meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Meier, B. P.,& Robinson, M. D. (2004). Why the sunny side is up:Associations between affect and vertical position. Psychological Science,15,243-247.
Meier, B. P., Robinson, M. D.,& Caven, A. J. (2008). Why a big mac is a good mac: Associations between affect and size. Basic and Applied Social Psychology,30, 46-55.
Meier, B. P., Robinson, M. D.,& Clore, G. L. (2004). Why good guys wear white: Automatic inferences about stimulus valence based on brightness. Psychological Science,15(2),82-87.
Meier, B. P., Robinson, M. D., Crawford, L. E.,& Ahlvers, W. J. (2007). When "light" and "dark" thoughts become light and dark responses:Affect biases brightness judgments. Emotion,7(2),366-376.
Meier, B. P., Sellbom, M.,& Wygant, D. B. (2007). Failing to take the moral high ground:Psychopathy and the vertical representation of morality. Personality and Individual Differences,43,757-767.
Memelink, J.,& Hommel, B. (2011). Intentional weighting:a basic principle in cognitive control. Psychological Research. DOI 10.1007/s00426-012-0435-y
Meteyard, L., Rodriguez, S., Bahrami, B.,& Vigliocco, G (2012). Coming of age:A review of embodiment and the neuroscience of semantics. Cortex,48(7), 788-804.
Minsky, M. (1980). K-lines:A theory of memory. Cognitive Science,4,117-130.
Negri, G A. L., Rumiati, R. I., Zadini, A., Ukmar, M., Mahon, B. Z.,& Caramazza, A. (2007). What is the role of motor simulation in action and object recognition? Evidence from apraxia. Cognitive Neuropsychology,24(8),795-816.
Neuhaus, A. H., Urbanek, C., Opgen-Rhein, C., Hahn, E., Ta, T. M. T., Koehler, S.,. & Dettling, M. (2010). Event-related potentials associated with Attention Network Test. International Journal of Psychophysiology,76(2),72-79.
Norman, D. A. (1993) Things that makes us smart. Addison-Wesley.
Ouellet, M., Santiago, J., Funes, M. J.,& Lupianez, J. (2010). Thinking about the future moves attention to the right. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Human Perception and Performance,36(1),17-24.
Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. New York:Holt. Rinchart and Winston.
Paivio A (2007) Mind and its evolution:a dual coding theoretical approach. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ
Paivio, A. (2010). Dual coding theory and mental lexicon. The Mental Lexicon,5(2), 205-230.
Pecher, D.,& Boot, I. (2011). Numbers in space:differences between concrete and abstract situations. Frontiers in psychology,2.
Pecher, D., Boot, I.,& Van Dantzig, S. (2011). Abstract concepts:Sensory-motor grounding, metaphors, and beyond. In B. Ross (Ed.). The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, vol.54 (pp.217-248). Burlington:Academic Press.
Pecher, D., van Dantzig, S., Boot, I., Zanolie, K.,& Huber, D. E. (2010). Congruency between word position and meaning is caused by task induced spatial attention. Frontiers in Psychology,1:30.
Pecher, D., van Dantzig, S., Zwaan, R. A.,& Zeelenberg, R. (2009). Language comprehenders retain implied shape and orientation of objects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,62,1108-1114.
Piaget, J. (1927/1969). The child's conception of time. New York:Ballantine.
Posner, M. I.,& Snyder, C. R. R. (1975). Attention and cognitive control. In R. L. Solso (Ed.), Information processing and cognition:The Loyola Symposium (pp. 55-85). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.
Price, C. J. (2012). A review and synthesis of the first 20years of PET and fMRI studies of heard speech, spoken language and reading. Neuroimage,62(2), 816-847.
Proctor, R. W.,& Cho, Y. S. (2006). Polarity correspondence:A general principle for performance of speeded binary classification tasks. Psychological Bulletin,132, 416-442.
Pulvermuller, F.,& Fadiga, L. (2010). Active perception:sensorimotor circuits as a cortical basis for language. Nature Reviews Neuroscience,11(5),351-360.
Quadflieg, S., Etzel, J. A., Gazzola, V., Keysers, C., Schubert, T. W., Waiter, G D.,& Macrae, C. N. (2011). Puddles, parties, and professors:Linking word categorization to neural patterns of visuospatial coding. Journal of cognitive neuroscience,23(10),2636-2649.
Rommers, J., Meyer, A. S.,& Huettig, F. (2013). Object shape and orientation do not routinely influence performance during language processing. Psychological science,24(11),2218-2225.
Sadoski, M.,& Paivio, A. (2004). A dual coding theoretical model of reading. Theoretical models and processes of reading,5,1329-1362.
Santiago, J., Lupanez, J., P6rez, E.,& Funes, M. J. (2007). Time (also) flies from left to right. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,14(3),512-516.
Santiago, J., Ouellet, M., Roman, A.,& Valenzuela, J. (2012). Attentional factors in conceptual congruency. Cognitive Science,35(2),381-398.
Schank, R. C. (1972). Conceptual dependency:A theory of natural language understanding. Cognitive Psychology,3,552-631.
Schank, R. C.,& Abelson, R. P. (1977). Script, plan, goals, and understanding. Lawrence Erlbaum
Schneider, W.,& Shiffrin, R. M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing:1. Detection, search, and attention. Psychological Review,84,1-66.
Schubert, T. W. (2005). Your highness:Vertical positions as perceptual symbols of power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,89,1-21.
Schwarz, W.,& Keus, I. M. (2004). Moving the eyes along the mental number line: Comparing SNARC effects with saccadic and manual responses. Perception & Psychophysics,66,651-664.
Searle, J. R. (1980). Minds, brains, and programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3(3). 417-457.
Sell, A. J.,& Kaschak, M. P. (2011). Processing time shifts affects the execution of motor responses. Brain and language,117(1),39-44.
Setic, M.,& Domijan, D. (2007). The influence of vertical spatial orientation on property verification. Language and Cognitive Processes,22,297-312.
Silton, R. L., Heller, W., Towers, D. N., Engels, A. S., Spielberg, J. M., Edgar, J. C., Sass. S. M.,& Miller, G. A. (2010). The time course of activity in dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and anterior cingulate cortex during top-down attentional control. Neuroimage,50(3),1292-1302.
Simmons, W. K., Hamann, S. B., Harenski, C. L., Hu, X. P.,& Barsalou, L. W. (2008). fMRI evidence for word association and situated simulation in conceptual processing. Journal of Physiology-Paris,102(1),106-119.
Simon, H. A. (1979). Information Processing Models of Cognition. Annual Review of Psychology,30,363-396.
Simon, J. R.,& Rudell, A. P. (1967). Auditory S-R compatibility:The effect of an irrelevant cue on information processing. Journal of Applied Psychology,51, 300-304.
Simon, J. R.,& Small, A. M., Jr. (1969). Processing auditory information: Interference from an irrelevant cue. Journal of Applied Psychology,53(5), 433-435.
Smith, E. E., Shoben, E. J.,& Rips, L. J. (1974). Structure and process in semantic memory:A featural model for semantic decisions. Psychological Review,81, 214-241.
Sturmer, B., Leuthold, H., Soetens, E., Schroter, H.,& Sommer, W. (2002). Control over location-based response-activation in the Simon task:Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Human Perception and Performance,28,1345-1363.
Thornton, T., Loetscher, T., Yates, M. J.,& Nicholls, M. E. R. (2012). The Highs and Lows of the Interaction Between Word Meaning and Space. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Human Perception and Performance. Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/a0030467
Tschentscher, N., Hauk, O., Fischer, M. H.,& Pulvermiiller, F. (2012). You can count on the motor cortex:finger counting habits modulate motor cortex activation evoked by numbers. Neuroimage,59(4),3139-3148.
Tucker, M.,& Ellis, R. (1998). On the Relations Between Seen Objects and Components of Potential Actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology.Human Perception and Performance,24,830-846.
Tucker, M.,& Ellis, R. (2004). Action priming by briefly presented objects. Acta psychologica,116(2),185-203.
Tulving, E. (1972). Organization of memory. New York:Academic Press.
Vainio, L. (2009). Interrupted object-based updating of reach program leads to a negative compatibility effect. Journal of motor behavior,41(4),305-316.
van Dam, W. O., van Dijk, M., Bekkering, H.,& Rueschemeyer, S.-A. (2012). Flexibility in embodied lexical-semantic representations. Human Brain Mapping, 33,2322-2333.
Verges, M.,& Duffy, S. (2009). Spatial representations elicit dual-coding effects in mental imagery. Cognitive Science,33,1157-1172.
Verleger, R., Jaskowski, P., Aydemir, A., Lubbe, R. H. V. D.,& Groen, M. (2004). Qualitative differences between conscious and nonconscious processing? On inverse priming induced by masked arrows. Journal of Experimental Psychology-General,133(4),494-514.
Versa, A. H.,& Simon, H. A. (1993). Situated Action:A Symbolic Interpretation. Cognitive science,17,7-48.
Vigliocco, G, Meteyard, L., Andrews, M.,& Kousta, S. (2009). Toward a theory of semantic representation. Language and Cognition,1(2),219-247.
Vogel, E. K.,& Luck, S. J. (2000). The visual Nl component as an index of a discrimination process. Psychophysiology,37,190-203.
Walsh, V. (2003). A theory of magnitude:Common cortical metrics of time, space and quantity. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,7,483-488.
Wang, J., Conder, J. A., Blitzer, D. N.,& Shinkareva, S. V. (2010). Neural representation of abstract and concrete concepts:A meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies. Human brain mapping,31(10),1459-1468.
Wassenburg, S. I.,& Zwaan, R. A. (2010). Readers routinely represent implied object rotation:The role of visual experience. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,63,1665-1670.
Welcome, S. E., Paivio, A., McRae, K.,& Joanisse, M. F. (2011). An electrophysiological study of task demands on concreteness effects:Evidence for dual coding theory. Experimental Brain Research,212,347-358. doi:10.1007/s00221-011-2734-8
West, W. C.,& Holcomb, P. J. (2000). Imaginal, semantic, and surfacelevel processing of concrete and abstract words:An electrophysiological investigation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,12,1024-103.
Witt, J. K., Kemmerer, D., Linkenauger, S. A.,& Culham, J. (2010). A functional role for motor simulation in identifying tools. Psychological Science,21(9), 1215-1219.
Wuehr, P.,& Biebl, R. (2011). The role of working memory in spatial S-R correspondence effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Human Perception and Performance,37(2),442-454.
Zanolie, K., Van Dantzig, S., Boot, I., Wijnen, J., Schubert, T. W., Giessner, S. R.,& Pecher, D. (2012). Mighty metaphors:Behavioral and ERP evidence that power shifts attention on a vertical dimension. Brain and Cognition,78,50-58.
Zwaan, R. A. (2004). The Immersed Experiencer:Toward an Embodied Theory of Language Comprehension. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation:Advances in research and theory, Vol.44. (pp.35-62). New York, NY US:Elsevier Science.
Zwaan, R. A. (2014). Replications Should Be Performed With Power and Precision A Response to Rommers, Meyer, and Huettig (2013)Psychological science,25(1), 305-307.
Zwaan, R. A.,& Pecher, D. (2012). Revisiting mental simulation in language comprehension:Six replication attempts. PLoSONE,7(12), e51382. Retrieved from http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/j ournal.pone.0051382
Zwaan, R. A.,& Yaxley, R. H. (2003). Spatial iconicity affects semantic relatedness judgments. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,10(4),954-958.
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |