Spatial Representations Elicit Dual‐Coding Effects in Mental Imagery

Abstract

Spatial aspects of words are associated with their canonical locations in the real world. Yet little research has tested whether spatial associations denoted in language comprehension generalize to their corresponding images. We directly tested the spatial aspects of mental imagery in picture and word processing (Experiment 1). We also tested whether spatial representations of motion words produce similar perceptual-interference effects as demonstrated by object words (Experiment 2). Findings revealed that words denoting an upward spatial location produced slower responses to targets appearing at the top of the display, whereas words denoting a downward spatial location produced slower responses to targets appearing at the bottom of the display. Perceptual-interference effects did not obtain for pictures or for words lacking a spatial relation. These findings provide greater empirical support for the perceptual-symbols system theory (Barsalou, 1999(Barsalou, , 2008. Keywords: Dual-code theory; Mental imagery; Perceptual simulation; Spatial associationsThe moon was a sharply defined crescent and the sky was perfectly clear. The stars shone with such fierce, contained brilliance that it seemed absurd to call the night dark. The sea lay quietly, bathed in a shy, light-footed light, a dancing play of black and silver that extended without limits all about me.-Yann Martel, Life of PiIn prose, we embark on voyages and delight in adventures without forsaking the comfort of our homes. To illustrate, in Life of Pi, Martel (2001) transports the reader to imagine viewing the moon, sky, and sea while surviving alone on the Pacific Ocean. Indeed, writersCorrespondence should be sent to Michelle Verges,

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

“…For example, "hat" and "boot" elicited slower responses at top and bottom locations, respectively. Verges and Duffy (2009) further replicated this spatial interference effect with both nouns and verbs. Thus, spatial interference 1 has been demonstrated many times by several research groups (see also Gozli et al, 2013).…”

“…To illustrate, the word "bird" evokes (1) a high spatial association that shifts attention upward, and (2) a visual representation of a bird in that location. Critically, because this visual representation of a bird is incompatible with the visual target (e.g., ■), the representation effectively masks target identification at the associated location (Estes et al, 2008;Verges & Duffy, 2009). A similar explanation supposes that the perceptual representation engages the neural systems necessary for judging the visual target, thus creating interference in the form of neural competition (Bergen et al, 2007;Richardson et al, 2003).…”

“…This matching account explains spatial interference not only from nouns such as "bird", but also from verbs such as "jump" (Bergen et al, 2007;Richardson et al, 2003;Verges & Duffy, 2009). Given that many events (and the verbs that denote them) have visuo-3 This hypothesized coding of objects and locations as matches (+) or mismatches (-) is reminiscent of the polarity correspondence principle, which states that stimulus and response dimensions are coded as +polarity or -polarity, and that responding is faster when those stimulus and response polarities correspond (see Proctor & Cho, 2006).…”

“…Bergen et al, 2007;Estes et al, 2008;Richardson et al, 2003;Verges & Duffy, 2009). Because the target is in the associated location, it is coded as a location match (L+).…”

Abstract Concepts in Grounded Cognition

“…The relative spatial position of the words is either congruent or incongruent with the presentation of the stimulus words, thus resulting in a spatial Stroop effect (Lu & Proctor, 1995). In further support of this reasoning, similar effects are not observed when pictorial (compared to verbal) stimuli of objects typically seen up or down in the world are processed, since these pictorial stimuli do not have to be visualized to be represented (Verges & Duffy, 2009). A similar reasoning and paradigm has been used extensively in abstract domains (e.g., Schubert, 2005).…”