The highs and lows of the interaction between word meaning and space.

Abstract

We examined whether the processing of words associated with distinct spatial locations automatically biases behavior toward these locations in space. In four experiments (Ns = 30, 34, 32, 32), participants were shown stimuli denoting objects typically associated with the upper and lower regions of visual space. In Experiment 1, words were categorized as man-made or natural by pressing one of two vertically arranged keys. Reaction times were faster for trials in which response locations were congruent with the stimulus-associated locations. Experiment 2 replicated the stimulus-response congruency effect when the stimuli were presented in a pictorial format. Stimuli-space interactions therefore seem to be driven by an automatic activation of the spatial attributes associated with the stimuli, irrespective of input format. In Experiments 3 and 4, a target detection task involving only one response button was employed to examine whether the effects observed in the first two experiments were due to attentional shifts, independent of response selection processes. In both experiments, the previously observed congruence effect between words and space either diminished or vanished completely. Consequently, the results of the four experiments in the current study point to a dominant role of response-selection processes in the genesis of space-object word interactions.

What's up? Emotion-specific activation of vertical space during language processing

“…This replicates previous findings regarding the effects of implicit location words and indicates that spatial experiential traces did become automatically activated even if word meaning was task-irrelevant (Lachmair et al, 2011;Thornton et al, 2012). Average RTs were much faster than in Experiment 1 as the valence task was dropped and participants responded to word color only.…”

“…In addition, automatic spatial associations have also been reported in the motor domain. Words such as roof or root facilitated response movements and eye movements (saccades) towards a location compatible to the typical location of the word's referent (Dudschig, Souman, Lachmair, de la Vega, & Kaup, 2013;Lachmair, Dudschig, De Filippis, de la Vega, & Kaup, 2011;Thornton, Loetscher, Yates, & Nicholls, 2012). These associations between language and motor responses in the vertical space were also found for verbs (Dudschig, Lachmair, de la Vega, De Filippis, & Kaup, 2012a) and even during second-language processing .…”

“…Thus, when later hearing the word airplane, these sensory experiential traces are automatically reactivated and build the basis of understanding. As described above, evidence for this experiential trace mechanism is often drawn from studies showing an influence of implicit location words on subsequent perceptual-or motor-processes (e.g., Estes et al, 2008;Lachmair et al, 2011;Thornton et al, 2012). If the hypothesis that language understanding relies on reactivating experiential traces is valid, this leads to a theoretical challenge; specifically, how do we understand abstract concepts that do not refer to something we could have touched, smelt, seen, or otherwise experienced?…”

Words, objects, and locations: Perceptual matching explains spatial interference and facilitation

“…So why does the cue word have any 1 This spatial interference effect differs both methodologically and theoretically from the spatial iconicity effect, whereby words elicit faster responses when presented or responded to in their associated (iconic) location. That is, upward association words (e.g., "eagle") elicit faster responses when presented at the top of a display or when responding entails upward movement or pressing a high button, whereas downward association words (e.g., "snake") elicit faster responses when presented at the bottom of a display or when responding entails downward movement or pressing a low button (Kaup et al, 2012;Lachmair et al, 2011;Lebois, Wilson-Mendenhall, & Barsalou, in press;Meier et al, 2007;Schubert, 2005;Šetić & Domijan, 2007;Thornton, Loetscher, Yates, & Nicholls, 2013;Zwaan & Yaxley, 2003). Methodologically, the iconicity effect differs from the interference effect in that iconicity entails responding to the word itself rather than a separate visual target.…”

No horizontal numerical mapping in a culture with mixed-reading habits

“…This first demonstration of a spatial-numerical mapping in a mixed-reading culture corroborates the idea that these mappings are flexible and can vary within the same participant depending on the situational context and task demands (Bachtold et al, 1998; Hung et al, 2008; van Dijck et al, 2009; Fischer et al, 2010; Shaki and Fischer, 2012). It seems noteworthy that task demands not only affect spatial-numerical mappings, but also mappings in other dimensions such as space and words (Thornton et al, 2013), or numbers and time (Nicholls et al, 2011). The observation of mappings between word meaning (“moon”) and space (“upper visual space”), for example, is contingent on task demands as it depends on the arrangement of response buttons (Thornton et al, 2013).…”