Visual motion interferes with lexical decision on motion words

Abstract

Match, where visual display and word-meaning were congruent; Mismatch, where visual display and word-meaning were incongruent; and Control, where the words did not refer to vertical motion. In Experiment 1, near-threshold motion coherence was achieved by setting the dynamic visual motion at the individual observer's predetermined detection thresholds for upwards and downwards motion (see Supplemental data available on-line with this issue). In Experiments 2, 3 and 4, motion was supra-threshold: dynamic visual motion coherence was set to 30, 60 and 90%, respectively, to ensure that the same result was seen for different levels of salient motion, in line with [9].There were no significant effects of the experiment on the reaction time or error data, so Experiments 2, 3 and 4 were collapsed into one suprathreshold data set and compared to Experiment 1 (near-threshold). For reaction times, the main effect of the experimental Condition (Match or Mismatch) was significant (F(2,206) = 4.884, p < 0.01), as was the interaction between Condition and Experiment (F(2,206) = 3.158, p < 0.05).

Spatial distance effects on incremental semantic interpretation of abstract sentences: Evidence from eye tracking

“…For instance, Kaschak et al (2005) reported that participants were slower in a sentence sensibility judgment task when motion described by a sentence was in the same (vs. the opposite) direction as simultaneously presented visual motion. In another study, Meteyard et al (2008) found that low-level visual motion modulated lexical-decision times. Decision times were slower when motion words were incongruous (vs. congruous) with visual motion.…”

“…In parallel, it has been found that other visual features can modulate language processing even when they are not explicitly mentioned but implied by language (e.g., Kaschak et al, 2005;Meteyard, Zokaei, Bahrami, & Vigliocco, 2008;Pecher, van Dantzig, Zwaan, & Zeelenberg, 2009;Stanfield & Zwaan, 2001;Zwaan, Stanfield, & Yaxley, 2002). In a picture-verification task, participants' response times were longer when the shape or orientation implied by the sentence (e.g., He hammered the nail into the floor) mismatched (a horizontal nail) than when it matched (a vertical nail) the picture of a nail (Stanfield & Zwaan, 2001;Zwaan et al, 2002).…”

Language can boost otherwise unseen objects into visual awareness

“…In tasks requiring identification of the direction of moving dots, performance was worse after hearing a direction-incongruent verb (25), and simply imagining or hearing a story about motion can produce motion aftereffects (26). Conversely, lexical decision times for motion words increased in the presence of congruent visual motion and decreased with incongruent motion (27), suggesting bidirectional influences between linguistic and visual-motion processing. Similar demonstrations have been shown in the domain of contrast sensitivity (28) and face processing (29).…”

Verbs in space: Axis and direction of motion norms for 299 English verbs

“…According to embodied theories, sensory and motor systems are recruited (i.e., directly and necessarily activated) to represent, at a minimum, the semantic content of words that refer to objects or events experienced through the sensory and motor systems. For example, such words as kick and lick recruit motor systems involved in kicking and licking (Pulvermüller, 2001), and such words as rise and fall recruit sensory systems involved in motion processing (Meteyard, Bahrami, & Vigliocco, 2007;Meteyard, Zokaei, Bahrami, & Vigliocco, 2008).…”

“…We were interested in the lexical representation of verbs (events) rather than nouns (objects) and focused on motion events as a promising area for exploring the links that connect language, perception, and action that are at the core of embodied theories (Bergen, Lindsay, Matlock, & Narayanan, 2007;Kaschak et al, 2005;Kaschak, Zwaan, Aveyard, & Yaxley, 2006;Meteyard et al, 2007;Meteyard et al, 2008;Richardson, Spivey, Barsalou, & McRae, 2003). We embarked on a large-scale norming procedure for a large number of verbs that were selected for their potential motion content.…”