A lifespan perspective on semantic processing of concrete concepts: does a sensory/motor model have the potential to bridge the gap?

What matters in semantic feature processing for persons with stroke-aphasia: Evidence from an auditory concept–feature verification task

“…Furthermore, an interaction was observed in the naming-to-definition task between concept domain and information type, such that living concepts were named less accurately when definitions contained visual-perceptual information (Antonucci, Beeson, Labiner, & Rapcsak, 2008). The preponderance of evidence documenting the double dissociation, disproportionately deficient processing of nonliving concepts or deficient function/action feature processing, has been documented in reports of individuals with left dorsolateral stroke lesions (see Antonucci & Alt, 2011; Gainotti, 2000; 2006, for review), though to our knowledge there has not yet been a large-scale direct report of the interaction between domain and feature type in this population.…”

“…Furthermore, within the domain of nonliving concepts, it is suggested that fine-motor movements associated with the hand might be particularly salient for small, manipulable object-concepts (e.g., pen), but less so for large, nonmanipulables nonliving object-concepts (e.g., vehicles) (Warrington & McCarthy, 1987, p. 1291). Since that time, the question of how sensory/motor feature processing influences naming ability has been extensively examined via behavioral and neuroimaging work with individuals with and without brain injury, providing evidence of associations among finer-grained categories (e.g., animals vs. fruit; manipulable vs. non-manipulable nonliving concepts) and feature information types (e.g., visual-color vs. visual-shape; action vs. function) (reviews e.g., Antonucci & Alt, 2011; Gainotti, 2006; Martin, 2007). …”

Developing embodied cognition: insights from children’s concepts and language processing

“…Further, a theory emphasizing the importance of embodiment across the life-span would propose that the role of embodiment in conceptual processing is always present; the influence of sensorimotor experiences does not stop or change fundamentally throughout development, it just may become more refined and flexible over time (Antonucci and Alt, 2011). Indeed, the role of embodiment in conceptual processing is considered by some developmental theorists to be continuous, as conceptual representations across the lifespan are composed of perceptual and action experiences (Thelen, 2008), and the successive development of sensation, action, and language across childhood into adulthood is influenced by the experiences that a child has in their environment (Borghi and Cimatti, 2010).…”

“…It is widely agreed that before children acquire language, they build conceptual representations based on their sensorimotor experiences with the world (Antonucci and Alt, 2011). Once infants are able to sit and manipulate objects, they are able to acquire information about objects based on motor, tactile, visual, and auditory input (Smith, 2013).…”

Relaciones conceptuales: definición del constructo, bases neuroanatómicas y formas de evaluación/Conceptual relations: construct definition, neuroanatomical basis and ways of assessment

“…La literatura científica sobre las bases neuroanatómicas de las relaciones conceptuales es sustancialmente más profusa en población adulta que en niños (Antonucci & Alt, 2011). Los estudios mediante técnicas de neuroimágenes realizados en niños indican que la actividad cerebral durante el procesamiento semántico está lateralizada a la izquierda (Balsamo et al, 2002;Balsamo, Xu & Gaillard, 2006), al igual que en población adulta; sin embargo, las redes de lenguaje para el procesamiento semántico están menos especializadas (Brauer & Frederici, 2007).…”