Abstract
In two experiments, we explored how novice and expert athletes represent the everyday and sportspecific objects and actions that they read about. Novice and expert ice hockey players (Experiment 1) and football players (Experiment 2) read sentences describing everyday or sport-specific situations and then judged whether a pictured item (either matching the action implied in the previous sentence or not) was mentioned in the preceding sentence. The sentences in Experiment 1 consisted of everyday and hockey-specific scenarios. The sentences in Experiment 2 depicted football scenarios implying football-specific or non—football-specific actions anyone might perform. Everyone responded most quickly to items that matched the sentence-implied actions for everyday and non—sport-specific actions. Only athletes showed this effect for their respective sport-specific scenarios. Differentiating between the same item in different action orientations is thought to be driven by embodied knowledge containing the sensorimotor characteristics of what one is reading about. We show that possessing this type of representation depends on experience interacting with objects and performing the actions in question.
Article PDF
References
Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems.Behavioral & Brain Sciences,22, 577–660.
Beilock, S. L., &Carr, T. H. (2001). On the fragility of skilled performance: What governs choking under pressure?Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,130, 701–725.
Deakin, J. M., &Allard, F. (1991). Skilled memory in expert figure skaters.Memory & Cognition,19, 79–86.
Glenberg, A. M. (1997). What memory is for.Behavioral & Brain Sciences,20, 1–55.
Glenberg, A. M., &Kaschak, M. P. (2002). Grounding language in action.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,9, 558–565.
Glenberg, A. M., &Kaschak, M. P. (2003). The body’s contribution to language. In B. H. Ross (Ed.),The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 43, pp. 93–126). New York: Academic Press.
Klatzky, R. L., Pellegrino, J. W., McCloskey, B. P., &Doherty, S. (1989). Can you squeeze a tomato? The role of motor representations in semantic sensibility judgments.Journal of Memory & Language,28, 56–77.
Markman, A. B., &Brendl, C. M. (2005). Constraining theories of embodied cognition.Psychological Science,16, 6–11.
Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1986). Computational cognition: Toward a foundation for cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Snodgrass, J. G., &Vanderwart, M. (1980). A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory,6, 174–215.
Stanfield, R. A., &Zwaan, R. A. (2001). The effect of implied orientation derived from verbal context on picture recognition.Psychological Science,12, 153–156.
Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,9, 625–636.
Zwaan, R. A. (1999). Embodied cognition, perceptual symbols, and situation models.Discourse Processes,28, 81–88.
Zwaan, R. A., Madden, C. J., Yaxley, R. H., &Aveyard, M. E. (2004). Moving words: Dynamic representations in language comprehension.Cognitive Science,28, 611–619.
Zwaan, R. A., Stanfield, R. A., &Yaxley, R. H. (2002). Language comprehenders mentally represent the shape of objects.Psychological Science,13, 168–171.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Holt, L.E., Beilock, S.L. Expertise and its embodiment: Examining the impact of sensorimotor skill expertise on the representation of action-related text. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 13, 694–701 (2006). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193983
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193983