Grounding conceptual knowledge in modality-specific systems

Barsalou, Lawrence W.; Simmons, W. Kyle; Barbey, Aron K.; Wilson, C. D.

doi:10.1016/s1364-6613(02)00029-3

Cited by 967 publications

(723 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

657

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, on the basis of past research findings and interpretations, we assume that evidence indicating that actions are integrated also indicates that the perceptual features associated with these actions are integrated, and together form a representation of an action event. This assumption is consistent with instance theories (Logan 1988), modal theories of memory (e.g., Barsalou 2009;Barsalou, Simmons, Barbey, & Wilson 2003), and the theory of event coding (Hommel et al, 2001). It is unlikely that the strong associations between perceptual features and action features are broken such that only the perceptual features or only the action features are represented in an event.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 69%

“…It is argued that motor activation is induced by action words, affordances of perceptual objects, and other perceptual events because motor activation is intrinsically linked to the processing of semantics and affordances (e.g., Fagioli, Ferlazzo, & Hommel, 2007;Fagioli, Hommel, & Schubotz, 2007;von Cramon 2002, 2003;Tipper et al, 2006;Tucker and Ellis 1998). In other words, motor activation is part of the meaning or concept, regardless of whether the meaning or concept is represented by a word(s), object(s), or actions of another individual (e.g., Pulvermüller 2005;Rueschemeyer, Lindemann, Van Elk, & Bekkering, 2009), which is consistent with modal theories of memory (e.g., Barsalou 2009;Barsalou et al, 2003). Our results are consistent with these findings and interpretations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 53%

See 1 more Smart Citation

What makes an event: Temporal integration of stimuli or actions?

Fournier

Gallimore

2013

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, we ask what serves as the "glue" that temporarily links information to form an event in an active observer. We examined whether forming a single action event in an active observer is contingent on the temporal presentation of the stimuli (hence, on the temporal availability of the action information associated with these stimuli), or on the learned temporal execution of the actions associated with the stimuli, or on both. A partial-repetition paradigm was used to assess the boundaries of an event for which the temporal properties of the stimuli (i.e., presented either simultaneously or temporally separate) and the intended execution of the actions associated with these stimuli (i.e., executed as one, temporally integrated, response or as two temporally separate responses) were manipulated. The results showed that the temporal features of action execution determined whether one or more events were constructed; the temporal presentation of the stimuli (and hence the availability of their associated actions) did not. This suggests that the action representation, or "task goal," served as the "glue" in forming an event in an active observer. These findings emphasize the importance of action planning in event construction in an active observer.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 69%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 53%

What makes an event: Temporal integration of stimuli or actions?

Fournier

Gallimore

2013

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…According to a situated conceptualization view, people represent knowledge as partial simulations of sensory, motor, and introspective states (Barsalou, 1999;Barsalou, Niedenthal, Barbey, & Ruppert, 2003;Barsalou, Simmons, Barbey, & Wilson, 2003). As an event is experienced, the underlying sensory, motor, and introspective states are partially stored.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Valence Focus and the Perception of Facial Affect.

Barrett¹,

Niedenthal²

2004

Emotion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Individuals differ in the extent to which they emphasize feelings of pleasure or displeasure in their verbal reports of emotional experience, an individual difference termed valence focus (VF). This multimethod study indicates that VF is linked to heightened efficiency in perceptual processing of affective stimuli. Individuals higher in VF (i.e., who emphasized feelings of pleasure/displeasure in reports of emotional experiences) were more sensitive to changes in negative facial expressions than individuals lower in VF. The effect was not accounted for by current affective state or other personality characteristics. Implications for the validity of self-reported experienced emotion are discussed.Valence is a basic property of affect (Russell & Feldman Barrett, 1999). When reporting their experience, individuals differ in the extent to which they emphasize this property, reflecting individual differences in valence focus (VF;Feldman, 1995;, 2004. For example, the word tired, defined as unpleasant and low in arousal, can be used to communicate feeling sleepy (emphasizing low arousal), annoyed and miserable (emphasizing the unpleasantness), or fatigued (emphasizing both low arousal and displeasure). An individual high in VF uses emotion adjectives primarily to communicate pleasure and displeasure, whereas someone low in VF does this less so and uses emotion adjectives to communicate other properties of feelings as well. The measurement of VF is implicit because participants are not asked directly about their attention to pleasure and displeasure. Rather, VF is defined as the extent to which participants focus on the pleasant or unpleasant property of the adjectives when making self-reports of experienced emotion.At a conceptual level, it is assumed that differential emphasis on valence during the self-report process reflects differential experience of pleasure and displeasure. A reasonable hypothesis is that people differ in their sensitivity to valenced information in the environment and, as a result, differ in the intensity and frequency of experienced pleasure and displeasure. Differential experience leads to differential word use, resulting in VF. Perceptual Sensitivity to Valenced InformationWe examined the link between VF and perceptual sensitivity to valenced information by relying on a "morph movies" task (Niedenthal, Brauer, Halberstadt, & Innes-Ker, 2001; Niedenthal, Brauer, Robin, & Innes-Ker, 2002; Niedenthal, Halberstadt, Margolin, & InnesKer, 2000). In the present version of the task, participants played 100-frame computerized movies in which a face displaying a neutral expression gradually changed to display a clear emotional expression (either angry, sad, or happy). The participants used a computerized mouse to control the speed with which each movie played and to stop each movie at the point where, for the first time, an emotional expression appeared on the face (i.e., the onset point).The morph movies task was useful for studying the link between VF and perceptual sensitivity to valenced ...

show abstract

“…The majority of language studies have been firmly focused on language proper, to the exclusion of context and multimodal expression that contribute to utterance and meaning construction. A major consequence of the second assumption is our conception of language processing and language development as an abstract and symbolic system, where linking between linguistic and conceptual levels is a process of transduction from linguistic symbols to cognitive representations only arbitrarily linked [1]. Below, we discuss the consequences of these two assumptions, which we see as arising from an excessively narrow lens on language as the object of study, in more detail ( §1a,b).…”

Section: Language Studies: the Current Focus Approaches And Assumptionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Language as a multimodal phenomenon: implications for language learning, processing and evolution

Vigliocco¹,

Perniss

Vinson³

2014

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

166

131

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Our understanding of the cognitive and neural underpinnings of language has traditionally been firmly based on spoken Indo-European languages and on language studied as speech or text. However, in face-to-face communication, language is multimodal: speech signals are invariably accompanied by visual information on the face and in manual gestures, and sign languages deploy multiple channels (hands, face and body) in utterance construction. Moreover, the narrow focus on spoken Indo-European languages has entrenched the assumption that language is comprised wholly by an arbitrary system of symbols and rules. However, iconicity (i.e. resemblance between aspects of communicative form and meaning) is also present: speakers use iconic ges- tures when they speak; many non-Indo-European spoken languages exhibit a substantial amount of iconicity in word forms and, finally, iconicity is the norm, rather than the exception in sign languages. This introduction provides the motivation for taking a multimodal approach to the study of language learning, processing and evolution, and discusses the broad implications of shifting our current dominant approaches and assumptions to encompass multimodal expression in both signed and spoken languages

show abstract

Grounding conceptual knowledge in modality-specific systems

Cited by 967 publications

References 35 publications

What makes an event: Temporal integration of stimuli or actions?

What makes an event: Temporal integration of stimuli or actions?

Valence Focus and the Perception of Facial Affect.

Language as a multimodal phenomenon: implications for language learning, processing and evolution

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About