A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis of Spatial Interference From Linguistic Cues: Beyond Petrova et al. (2018)

Abstract

Words with spatial associations (e.g., "bird") can hinder identification of an unrelated visual stimulus at the implied location (i.e., at the top of a display). This spatial interference effect has been demonstrated many times by several independent research groups (e.g., Estes, Verges, & Barsalou, 2008), and it fits within the theoretical framework of grounded cognition. Petrova et al. (in-press) reported a series of experiments that varied in similarity to Estes et al. (2008), successfully replicating the spatial interference effect only once, and concluding that the effect is unreliable. Here we report a comprehensive meta-analysis of 37 tests of the spatial interference effect. We show that the effect is moderately large and highly reliable among studies that evoke semantic processing of the linguistic cues and that assess interference at suitably short delays. In conclusion, the spatial interference effect occurs reliably with semantic processing, and varies systematically with temporal and linguistic constraints.

Challenges and Opportunities for Grounding Cognition

“…In the literature on grounded cognition, high-profile findings sometimes fail to replicate, including the action compatibility effect (ACE) and the facial mimicry effect ( Morey et al, 2020 ; Wagenmakers et al, 2016 ). Other grounded effects, however, have replicated, including the spatial compatibility effect ( Zwaan & Pecher, 2012 ) and the spatial interference effect ( Estes & Barsalou, 2018 ). Importantly, replicable effects often exhibit considerable context sensitivity, with the presence of contextual moderators being important for their presence ( Estes & Barsalou, 2018 ; Van Bavel, Mende-Siedlecki, Brady, & Reinero, 2016 ).…”

Six Challenges for Embodiment Research

“…A crucial issue thus arises: To what extent does embodied language processing occur routinely? Different contexts make different aspects of word meanings relevant (Estes & Barsalou, 2018). It is conceivable that simulations are specifically tailored to fit those dynamic contextual demands.…”

“…Many studies have investigated the effects of words with vertical spatial associations (e.g., cloud is up, foot is down) on visual detection and discrimination tasks involving targets in up or down locations (Gozli, Chasteen, & Pratt, 2013). Implicit up/down words tend to interfere with targets in compatible locations in discrimination tasks when words and targets are semantically unrelated and targets appear within 400 ms after the word, whereas facilitation is observed in detection tasks when the time between words and targets is longer than 400 ms or when semantically related words and targets are used (Estes & Barsalou, 2018;Gozli et al, 2013). A theoretical account that explains the direction and timing of effects is that words trigger visual simulations of typical events in visuospatial systems (Ostarek & Vigliocco, 2017).…”

Towards Understanding the Task Dependency of Embodied Language Processing: The Influence of Colour During Language-Vision Interactions

“…A sixth challenge, and the one we address in the present study, is to more fully understand the task dependency of embodied language processing. It is important to note here that some previous studies have focused on the notion that different situations may make different aspects of language (e.g., different aspects of meaning) contextually relevant (e.g., Estes & Barsalou, 2018 ). Other studies have focused on strong interpretations of embodiment and have proposed that sensory representations are routinely activated to influence language processing (e.g., Wassenburg & Zwaan, 2010 ).…”