Baroni G.

Borghi A. M.

Galatolo R.

Lugli L.

Nicoletti R

Scerrati E.

English

Archivio istituzionale della ricerca - Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia

Visually and aurally presented prime sentences automatically activate our sensesScerrati E.1, Baroni G.1, Borghi A.M.2,3, Galatolo R.1, Lugli L.1, Nicoletti, R.11 Department of Philosophy and Communication, University of Bologna 2 Department of Psychology, University of Bologna3 Institute of Cognitive Sciences and Technologies, Italian National Research Councilelisa.scerrati@unibo.itINTRODUCTION• A growing number of neuroimaging studies show that modality-specific brain areas are active during conceptual processing [1, 2].• Further, the behavioral literature shows that when different-modality properties for concepts are processed during a property verification task, a cognitive cost typically occurs [3, 4, 5]. • This effect, known as the Modality-switch effect (henceforth, MSE), has been claimed to be the result of an automatic perceptual simulation.• However, it has not been fully explored whether the MSE is actually automatic and independent of the stimulus’ presentation modality.METHODParticipants: 64 students (43 females; mean age: 20.26, SD: 1.58).Task: property-verification task on 96 concept-property target pairs, either writtenor spoken (see figure 1 for an example of the experimental procedure).RESULTSA Repeated Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on RTs, with Modality (same vs. differentvs. neutral) as a within-subject factor and Condition (visual vs. auditory) as abetween-subjects factor was performed. The main effect of Modality, [F(2, 124) =58.32, MSe = 13302.62, p< .001,ηp2 = .485] and Condition [F(1, 62) = 320.32, MSe=146787.41, p< .001, ηp2 = .838] as well as their interaction [F(2, 87.1) = 7.88, MSe =18941.26., p< .001, ηp2 = .113] resulted as significant. See Table 1 and Figure 2 and3 for details.Visual Auditoryms msSame 1538 (178.3) 2462 (202.2)Different 1588 (206.5) 2552 (245.4)Neutral 1676 (222.2) 2756 (349.1)REFERENCES[1] Martin, A. (2007). The representation of object concepts in the brain. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 25–45.[2] Martin, A., & Chao, L. (2001). Semantic memory and the brain: Structure and process. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 11, 194–201.[3] Pecher, D., Zeelenberg, R., & Barsalou, L.W. (2003). Verifying the properties of object concepts across different modalities produces switching costs. Psychological Science, 14, 119-124.[4]. Lynott, D., Connell, L. (2009). Modality exclusivity norms for 423 object properties. Behavior Research Methods, 41 (2), 558-564.[5] van Dantzig, S., Pecher, D., Zeelenberg, R., Barsalou, L.W. (2008). Perceptual processing affects conceptual processing. Cognitive Science , 32, 579-590.- - ->DISCUSSIONo In line with the hypotheses, our findings showed a cost when twodifferent modalities alternate, compared to when the same modality isrepeated.o Our results boost and broaden previous findings on the MSE duringconceptual processing [see 3, 4, 5]. Specifically, two results are worthmentioning: (1) the MSE emerges independently of the stimulus’presentation modality; (2) the MSE occurs when participants could notpossibly construct a mental image of the content of prime and targetsentences due to the restricted time of exposition of both. This resultfurthers the hypothesis that the MSE is an automatic effect originatingfrom a simulation process.o The slowest RTs in the neutral condition could be due to the fact thatneutral primes were perceptually non informative, hence they did notpre-activate any specific sensory modality. Therefore, participants couldnot take advantage of a general activation of the sensory system and thisconsequently resulted in an overall slower processing of targets.o We conclude that the MSE speaks in favor of the embodied and groundedcognition view, which claims that conceptual knowledge is grounded intothe perceptual system.Figure 1: Example of written same, different and neutral-modality prime and target sentences.# ° ^ ? *Table 1: Mean Response Times (in Milliseconds) with Standard Deviations in parenthesis, as a Function of Modality (same, different, neutral) for both visual and auditory conditions. TIPIs the MSE actually independent of the stimulus’ presentation modality? A within-subject design provisional data* Figure 3: Mean Response Times (in Milliseconds) as a Function of Modality (same, different, neutral)for the auditory condition. Bars are standard Errors.Figure 2: Mean Response Times (in Milliseconds) as a Function of Modality (same, different, neutral)for the visual condition. Bars are standard Errors.Table 2: Mean Response Times (in Milliseconds) with Standard Deviations in parenthesis, as a Function of Presentation Modality  (Same, Different) and Content Modality (Same, Different).Figure 4: Mean Response Times (in Milliseconds) as a Function of Presentation Modality (Same, Different) and Content Modality (Same, Different). Bars are standard Errors.Presentation x Content RTsmsDIFF-DIFF (DD) 2085 (378.5)SAME-DIFF (SD) 2084 (291.6)DIFF-SAME (DS) 2073 (250.6)SAME-SAME (SS) 2020 (245)1900195020002050210021502200RTsPresentationxContentDIFFDIFF SAMEDIFF DIFFSAME SAMESAME*Data concerning 43 participants (24 females; mean age: 20.27; SD: 1.27)

Visually and aurally presented prime sentences automatically activate our senses

https://iris.unimore.it/retrieve/handle/11380/1196511/252712/poster_ESCOP_2015.pdf

Visually and aurally presented prime sentences automatically activate our senses

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Archivio istituzionale della ricerca - Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia