↓ Skip to main content

Context Effects in Embodied Lexical-Semantic Processing

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, October 2010
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
60 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
93 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Context Effects in Embodied Lexical-Semantic Processing
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, October 2010
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00150
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wessel O. van Dam, Shirley-Ann Rueschemeyer, Oliver Lindemann, Harold Bekkering

Abstract

The embodied view of language comprehension proposes that the meaning of words is grounded in perception and action rather than represented in abstract amodal symbols. Support for embodied theories of language processing comes from behavioral studies showing that understanding a sentence about an action can modulate congruent and incongruent physical responses, suggesting motor involvement during comprehension of sentences referring to bodily movement. Additionally, several neuroimaging studies have provided evidence that comprehending single words denoting manipulable objects elicits specific responses in the neural motor system. An interesting question that remains is whether action semantic knowledge is directly activated as motor simulations in the brain, or rather modulated by the semantic context in which action words are encountered. In the current paper we investigated the nature of conceptual representations using a go/no-go lexical decision task. Specifically, target words were either presented in a semantic context that emphasized dominant action features (features related to the functional use of an object) or non-dominant action features. The response latencies in a lexical decision task reveal that participants were faster to respond to words denoting objects for which the functional use was congruent with the prepared movement. This facilitation effect, however, was only apparent when the semantic context emphasized corresponding motor properties. These findings suggest that conceptual processing is a context-dependent process that incorporates motor-related knowledge in a flexible manner.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 3 3%
United Kingdom 3 3%
United States 3 3%
Canada 2 2%
Germany 1 1%
Italy 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
China 1 1%
Unknown 78 84%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 22%
Researcher 15 16%
Student > Bachelor 10 11%
Student > Master 9 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 5%
Other 21 23%
Unknown 13 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 49 53%
Linguistics 10 11%
Neuroscience 5 5%
Computer Science 3 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 9 10%
Unknown 15 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 July 2014.
All research outputs
#17,285,668
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#21,222
of 34,412 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#88,062
of 108,073 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,412 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 108,073 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them