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

Abstract

[NEEDS REVISING]Many common words have spatial associations (e.g., "bird," "jump") that, counterintuitively, hinder identification of visual targets at their associated location. For example, "bird" hinders identification at the top of a display. This spatial interference has been attributed to perceptual simulation: "bird" shifts attention upward and evokes the perceptual representation of a bird, which impairs target identification by preoccupying the visual system. We propose an alternative explanation based on perceptual matching: target objects and locations are coded independently for their congruence with the cue word, and codes that are inconsistent with one another hinder identification. "Bird" hinders identification of a square target in the upper visual field because the target object mismatches the cue but its location matches the cue, thereby creating inconsistent codes that slow responding. We tested these competing accounts by comparing spatial interference from strongly visual (e.g., "bird") and nonvisual (e.g., "arise") cue words. Across two experiments with a large sample of nouns (Experiment 1) and verbs (Experiment 2), words of strong and weak visual strength and imageability elicited equivalent spatial interference. Thus, spatial interference is attributable to perceptual matching rather than perceptual simulation. Moreover, results supported a graded model of perceptual matching, whereby target identification times are proportional to the physical distance between the expected (i.e., associated) and observed (i.e., actual) target locations.

The Lancaster Sensorimotor Norms: multidimensional measures of perceptual and action strength for 40,000 English words

“…In conclusion, the Lancaster Sensorimotor Norms provide a valuable resource for researchers across a variety of fields. Use of these norms as semantic variables, whether as an aggregate measure of sensorimotor strength or as modality-and effector-specific ratings, will inform psycholinguistic models of word recognition and language processing (e.g., Connell & Lynott, 2016a;Estes, Verges, & Adelman, 2015;Speed & Majid, 2017; see also Connell & Lynott, 2016b, for a review). The parallels between the sensorimotor dimensions in the present norms and specific brain regions related to perceptual and action processing mean that close examination of the roles and interactions of each dimension will be able to inform theories of grounded representation and embodied semantics (e.g., Connell et al, 2018;Lievers & Winter, 2018;Rey, Riou, Vallet, & Versace, 2017).…”

Cross-decoding reveals shared brain activity patterns between saccadic eye-movements and semantic processing of implicitly spatial words

“…Numerous studies have shown that processing up/down words can influence performance at visual tasks involving compatible vs. incompatible location (Estes, Verges, & Adelman, 2015;Estes, Verges, & Barsalou, 2008;Gozli, Chasteen, & Pratt, 2013;Ostarek & Vigliocco, 2017). Behavioral work has established that processing up/down words enhances spatial attention to the compatible location which often leads to facilitated detection and identification of visual targets in the primed location (Dudschig, Lachmair, de la Vega, De Filippis, & Kaup, 2012;Gozli et al, 2013;Ostarek & Vigliocco, 2017).…”

“…Interference in the compatible location is typically observed when stimulus onset asynchrony between prime words and visual targets is short (< 400ms) and when they are semantically unrelated (Estes et al, 2015(Estes et al, , 2008Gozli et al, 2013). Recent eye-tracking studies found that up/down words speed up subsequent spatially compatible saccades (Dudschig et al, 2013;Dunn, 2016) and influence concurrent saccades in the congruent direction (Ostarek, Ishag, Joosen, & Huettig, in press), suggesting that processing these words pre-activates specific motor programs in saccade-related brain areas.…”

Saccade trajectories reveal dynamic interactions of semantic and spatial information during the processing of implicitly spatial words.

“…RT measures that are blind to the online cognitive processes that unfold as congruence versus incongruence on multiple levels interacts and give only one piece of discrete information about their final outcome (Estes et al, 2008(Estes et al, , 2015Gozli et al, 2013;Ostarek & Vigliocco, 2017). Eye-tracking, by contrast, can reveal the dynamically emerging processes with the highest temporal resolution.…”