Abstract
In this article, we explore the nature of the conceptual knowledge retrieved when people use words to think about objects. If conceptual knowledge is used to simulate and guide action in the world, then how one can interact with an object should be reflected in the speed of retrieval and the content that is retrieved. This prediction was tested in three experiments in which a part verification procedure was used. Experiments 1 and 2 demonstrated that speed of part verification varied with the perspective imposed on the object by the language used to name the object (e.g., “You are driving a car” or “You are fueling a car”). In Experiment 3, parts were chosen so that actions directed toward them (on the real object) require movement upward (e.g., the roof of a car) or downward (e.g., the wheels of a car). Orthogonally, responding “yes” required an upward or a downward movement to a response button. Responding in a direction incompatible with the part’s location (e.g., responding downward to verify that a car has a roof) was slow relative to responding in a direction compatible with the part’s location. These results provide a strong link between concept knowledge and situated action.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anderson, R. C., &Ortony, A. (1975). On putting apples into bottles: A problem of polysemy.Cognitive Psychology,7, 167–180.
Arkin, R. C. (1998).Behavior-based robotics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Barsalou, L. W. (1982). Context-independent and context-dependent information in concepts.Memory & Cognition,10, 82–93.
Barsalou, L. W. (1987). The instability of graded structure: Implications for the nature of concepts. In U. Neisser (Ed.),Concepts and conceptual development: Ecological and intellectual factors in categorization (pp. 101–140). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Barsalou, L. W. (1999a). Perceptual symbol systems.Behavioral & Brain Sciences,22, 577–609.
Barsalou, L. W. (1999b). Author’s response: Perceptual symbol systems.Behavioral & Brain Sciences,22, 637–660.
Barsalou, L. W. (2002). Being there conceptually: Simulating categories in preparation for situated action. In N. L. Stein, P. J. Bauer, & M. Rabinowitz (Eds.),Representation, memory, and development: Essays in honor of Jean Mandler (pp. 1–16). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Barsalou, L.W., Solomon, K. O., &Wu, L. L. (1999). Perceptual simulation in conceptual tasks. In M. K. Hiraga, C. Sinha, & S. Wilcox (Eds.),Cultural, typological, and psychological perspectives in cognitive linguistics: The proceedings of the 4th conference of the International Cognitive Linguistics Association (Vol. 3, pp. 209–228). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Clark, H. H. (1975). Bridging. In R. Schank & B. Nash-Webber (Eds.),Theoretical issues in natural language processing (pp. 188–193). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Collins, A. M., &Loftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing.Psychological Review,82, 407–428.
Dreyfus, H. L. (1992).What computers still can’t do: A critique of artificial reason. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Duchan, J. F., Bruder, G. A., &Hewitt, L. A. (1995).Deixis in narrative: A cognitive science perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ellis, R., &Tucker, M. (2000). Micro-affordance: The potentiation of components of action by seen objects.British Journal of Psychology,91, 451–471.
Gerlach, C., Law, I., &Paulson, O. B. (2002). When action turns into words: Activation of motor-based knowledge during categorization of manipulable objects.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,14, 1230–1239.
Gibson, J. J. (1979).The ecological approach to visual perception. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
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., &Robertson, D. A. (2000). Symbol grounding and meaning: A comparison of high-dimensional and embodied theories of meaning.Journal of Memory & Language,43, 379–401.
Hertzberg, J. (1999). Planning. In J. Webster (Ed.),Encyclopedia of electrical and electronics engineering (Vol. 16, pp. 493–504). London: Wiley.
Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., &Prinz, W. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action planning.Behavioral & Brain Sciences,24, 849–937.
Kako, E., &Trueswell, J. C. (2000). Verb meanings, object affordances, and the incremental restriction of reference.Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 256–261). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kaschak, M. P., &Glenberg, A. M. (2000). Constructing meaning: The role of affordances and grammatical constructions in sentence comprehension.Journal of Memory & Language,43, 508–529.
Keil, F. C. (1989).Concepts, kinds, and cognitive development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kosslyn, S. M., Ball, T. M., &Reiser, B. J. (1978). Visual images preserve metric spatial information: Evidence from studies of image scanning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,4, 47–60.
Landauer, T. K., &Dumais, S. T. (1997). A solution to Plato’s problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction and representation of knowledge.Psychological Review,104, 211–240.
MacWhinney, B. (in press). The emergence of grammar from perspective. In D. Pecher & R. A. Zwaan (Eds.),Grounding cognition: The role of perception and action in memory, language, and thinking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Martin, A., Haxby, J. V., Lalonde, F. M., Wiggs, C. L., &Ungerleider, L. G. (1995). Discrete cortical regions associated with knowledge of color and knowledge of action.Science,270, 102–105.
Martin, A., Ungerleider, L. G., &Haxby, J. V. (2001). Category specificity and the brain: The sensory-motor model of semantic representations of objects. In M. S. Gazzaniga (Ed.),The cognitive neurosciences (2nd ed., pp. 1023–1036). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Martin, A., Wiggs, C. L., Ungerleider, L. G., &Haxby, G. V. (1996). Neural correlates of category specific knowledge.Nature,379, 649–652.
Matarić, M. J. (2001). Behavior-based robotics. In R. A. Wilson & F. C. Keil (Eds.),The MIT encyclopedia of the cognitive sciences (MITECS) (pp. 74–77). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Matarić, M. J. (2002). Situated robotics. InEncyclopedia of cognitive science (Vol. 4, pp. 25–30). London: Nature Publisher Group, Macmillan Reference.
McCloskey, M. E., &Glucksberg, S. (1978). Natural categories: Well defined or fuzzy sets?Memory & Cognition,6, 462–472.
McCloskey, M. E., &Glucksberg, S. (1979). Decision processes in verifying category membership statements: Implications for models of semantic memory.Cognitive Psychology,11, 1–37.
Murphy, G. L. (2002).The big book of concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Nolfi, S., &Floreano, D. (2000).Evolutionary robotics: The biology, technology, and intelligence of self-organizing machines. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Norman, D. A., &Rumelhart, D. (1975).Exploration in cognition. San Francisco: Freeman.
Palmer, S. E. (1977). Hierarchical structure in perceptual representation.Cognitive Psychology,9, 441–474.
Palmer, S. [E.], Rosch, E., &Chase, P. (1981). Canonical perspective and the perception of objects. In J. Long and A. Baddeley (Eds.),Attention and performance IX (pp. 135–151). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pecher, D., Zeelenberg, R., &Barsalou, L. W. (2003). Verifying properties from different modalities for concepts produces switching costs.Psychological Science,14, 119–124.
Pulvermüller, F. (1999). Words in the brain’s language.Behavioral & Brain Sciences,22, 253–279.
Roth, E. M., &Shoben, E. J. (1983). The effect of context on the structure of categories.Cognitive Psychology,15, 346–378.
Tucker, M., &Ellis, R. (1998). On the relations between seen objects and components of potential actions.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,24, 830–846.
Tucker, M., &Ellis, R. (2001). The potentiation of grasp types during visual object categorization.Visual Cognition,8, 769–800.
Zwaan, R. A., & Madden, C. J. (in press). Embodied sentence comprehension. In D. Pecher & R. A. Zwaan (Eds.),Grounding cognition: The role of perception and action in memory, language, and thinking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zwaan, R. A., &Yaxley, R. H. (2003). Spatial iconicity affects semantic relatedness judgments.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review10, 954–958.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Additional information
This research was conducted while A.M.B. was a visiting scholar at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, supported by a Marco Polo Grant from the University of Bologna. A.M.G. received support from a University of Wisconsin Vilas Associate Award and NSF Grants BCS-0315434 and INT-0233175.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Borghi, A.M., Glenberg, A.M. & Kaschak, M.P. Putting words in perspective. Memory & Cognition 32, 863–873 (2004). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196865
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196865