2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.cortex.2014.10.015
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Of magnitudes and metaphors: Explaining cognitive interactions between space, time, and number

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

8
126
2
1

Year Published

2015
2015
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 164 publications
(145 citation statements)
references
References 155 publications
8
126
2
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Recently, a growing body of results has supported the idea that the left-right axis is a relevant spatial reference in order to metaphorically understand continuous abstract concepts. Indeed, mapping between such an axis and concepts such as numbers, time, and even politics is now strongly supported (Casasanto & Boroditsky, 2008;Dehaene, Bossini, & Giraux, 1993;Oppenheimer & Trail, 2010;Ren, Nicholls, Ma, & Chen, 2011; for recent reviews, see Bonn & Cantlon, 2012;Dijkstra, Eerland, Zijlmans, & Post, 2014;Winter et al, 2015). Together with our present results regarding the concept of valence, we assume the possibility that humans could have a kind of general tendency to represent continuous abstract concepts via the metaphor of a left-right continuum.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 52%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Recently, a growing body of results has supported the idea that the left-right axis is a relevant spatial reference in order to metaphorically understand continuous abstract concepts. Indeed, mapping between such an axis and concepts such as numbers, time, and even politics is now strongly supported (Casasanto & Boroditsky, 2008;Dehaene, Bossini, & Giraux, 1993;Oppenheimer & Trail, 2010;Ren, Nicholls, Ma, & Chen, 2011; for recent reviews, see Bonn & Cantlon, 2012;Dijkstra, Eerland, Zijlmans, & Post, 2014;Winter et al, 2015). Together with our present results regarding the concept of valence, we assume the possibility that humans could have a kind of general tendency to represent continuous abstract concepts via the metaphor of a left-right continuum.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 52%
“…Therefore, it has remained an open question whether the space-valence mapping is categorical or continuous, since clear evidence has been established for mappings between source and target continua such as space and time (Casasanto, & Boroditsky, 2008), space and pitch (Dolscheid, Shayan, Majid, & Casasanto, 2013), and space and numbers (Winter, Marghetis, & Matlock, 2015). In the present study, we addressed this question by asking participants to view faces that vary continuously in valence and to arrange them along a spatial continuum.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A growing body of evidence suggests that time is structured in terms of space (e.g. Bonato, Zorzi, & Umiltà, 2012;Winter, Marghetis, & Matlock, 2015). In order to conceptualize the mental representation of time via a spatial frame of reference, different authors have suggested a "mental time line" (Barsalou, 2008;Boroditsky, 2000;Casasanto & Boroditsky, 2008;Stocker, 2012).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A current question of interest is when does time associate with space (e.g., Tillman, Tulagan, & Barner, 2015;Winter et al, 2015). Does the mental time line lead to an immediate structuring of incoming past and future related information with the left and right representational space, or does this association only emerge when information is retrieved from memory?…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For instance, the conceptual metaphor account proposes that people recruit spatial experience (e.g., length) to support their understanding of durations (e.g., a longer length representing a longer duration) Casasanto & Boroditsky, 2008; see also Winter, Marghetis, & Matlock, 2015). The account is built on the philosophical claim that people metaphorically reconstruct a more concrete domain (e.g., space) to conceptualize about a more abstract domain (e.g., time, emotion) (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980, 1999.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%