Top

Gepubliceerd in:

26-11-2019 | Original Article

Perspective in the conceptualization of categories

Auteurs: Anna M. Borghi, Lawrence Barsalou

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 2/2021

Abstract

The ability to differently perceive and represent entities depending on their perspective is crucial for humans. We report five experiments that investigate how the different perspectives adopted while experiencing entities are reflected in conceptualizations (towards vs. away, near vs. far, beside vs. above, inside vs. outside and vision vs. audition vs. touch). Different groups of participants generated object properties while imagining the same scenario from different perspectives (e.g. entities coming toward them/going away from them while on a highway overpass). If conceptualizations have perspectives, then participants should produce features from a perspective entrenched in memory that reflects typical interactions with objects, independently of their assigned perspective (entrenched perspective). In addition, the perspective adopted in a given experiment should influence the properties generated (situated perspective). Results across the experiments indicate that conceptualizations contain both entrenched and situational perspectives. While entrenched perspectives emerge from canonical actions typically performed with objects, locations and entities, situational perspectives reflect online adaptations to current task contexts. The implications of the interplay between entrenched and situational perspectives for grounded cognition are discussed.

vorige artikel Different impact of task switching and response-category conflict on subsequent memory

volgende artikel Symbol grounding of number words in the subitization range

Because a neutral baseline was not included, we cannot determine whether toward instructions increased the presence of toward features, whether away instructions increased the presence of away features, or both. Thus, the presence of a situated perspective effect simply indicates that the toward–away task manipulation altered property generation in the predicted direction (given our directional one-tailed tests). Similar assumptions underlie the task manipulations in later experiments.

In the participants analysis, \( P_{{\bar{x}}} \)Δ_T–A is the mean value across the 16 P_iΔ_T–A. In the concepts analysis, the analogous mean, \( C_{{\bar{x}}} \)Δ_T–A, is always identical to \( P_{{\bar{x}}} \)Δ_T–A in the participants analysis, and so is not shown. These conventions are followed in all later analyses and experiments.

\( P_{{\overline{{{\text{T}} - {\text{A}}}} }} \) indicates the average difference in the \( P_{{\bar{x}}} \)Δ_T–A between the toward and away groups. In the concepts analysis, the analogous average difference, \( C_{{\overline{{{\text{T}} - {\text{A}}}} }} \), is always identical to \( P_{{\overline{{{\text{T}} - {\text{A}}}} }} \) in the participants analysis, and so is not shown. These conventions are followed in all later analyses and experiments.

Abelson, R. P. (1975). Does a story understander need a point of view? In Proceedings of the 1975 workshop on Theoretical issues in natural language processing (pp. 140–143). Association for Computational Linguistics.

Anderson, R. C., & Pichert, J. W. (1978). Recall of previously unrecallable information following a shift in perspective. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior, 17(1), 1–12.

Andrews, M., Frank, S., & Vigliocco, G. (2014). Reconciling embodied and distributional accounts of meaning in language. Topics in Cognitive Science, 6(3), 359–370.PubMed

Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577–609.

Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645.PubMed

Barsalou, L. W. (2016). On staying grounded and avoiding quixotic dead ends. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(4), 1122–1142.

Barsalou, L. W., Santos, A., Simmons, W. K., & Wilson, C. D. (2008). Language and simulation in conceptual processing. In M. De Vega, A. M. Glenberg, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Symbols, embodiment, and meaning (pp. 245–283). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Barsalou, L. W., Simmons, W. K., Barbey, A. K., & Wilson, C. D. (2003). Grounding conceptual knowledge in modality-specific systems. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 84–91.PubMed

Beveridge, M. E., & Pickering, M. J. (2013). Perspective taking in language: integrating the spatial and action domains. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 7, 577.PubMedPubMedCentral

Biederman, I., & Gerhardstein, P. C. (1993). Recognizing depth-rotated objects: evidence and conditions for three-dimensional viewpoint invariance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human perception and performance, 19(6), 1162.PubMed

Black, J. B., Turner, T. J., & Bower, G. H. (1979). Point of view in narrative comprehension, memory, and production. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18(2), 187–198.

Borghi, A. M., & Caruana, F. (2015). Embodiment Theory. In J. D. Wright (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (2nd ed., Vol. 7, pp. 420–426). Oxford: Elsevier.

Borghi, A. M., Glenberg, A. M., & Kaschak, M. P. (2004). Putting words in perspective. Memory & Cognition, 32(6), 863–873.

Borghi, A. M., & Riggio, L. (2009). Sentence comprehension and simulation of objects temporary, canonical and stable affordances. Brain Research, 1253, 117–128.PubMed

Brunyé, T. T., Ditman, T., Mahoney, C. R., Augustyn, J. S., & Taylor, H. A. (2009). When you and I share perspectives pronouns modulate perspective taking during narrative comprehension. Psychological Science, 20(1), 27–32.PubMed

Bruza, P. D., Wang, Z., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2015). Quantum cognition: A new theoretical approach to psychology. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19, 383–393.PubMed

Bruzzo, A., Borghi, A. M., & Ghirlanda, S. (2008). Hand–object interaction in perspective. Neuroscience Letters, 441(1), 61–65.PubMed

Connell, L., & Lynott, D. (2009). Is a bear white in the woods? Parallel representation of implied object color during language comprehension. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(3), 573–577.

Coventry, K. R., Griffiths, D., & Hamilton, C. J. (2014). Spatial demonstratives and perceptual space: Describing and remembering object location. Cognitive Psychology, 69, 46–70.PubMed

Coventry, K. R., Valdés, B., Castillo, A., & Guijarro-Fuentes, P. (2008). Language within your reach: Near–far perceptual space and spatial demonstratives. Cognition, 108(3), 889–895.PubMed

Diessel, H. (2006). Demonstratives, joint attention, and the emergence of grammar. Cognitive linguistics, 17(4), 463–489.

Ditman, T., Brunyé, T. T., Mahoney, C. R., & Taylor, H. (2010). Simulating an enactment effect: pronouns guide action simulation during narrative comprehension. Cognition, 115, 172–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.10.014.CrossRefPubMed

Duran, N. D., Dale, R., & Kreuz, R. J. (2011). Listeners invest in an assumed other’s perspective despite cognitive cost. Cognition, 121, 22–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.06.009.CrossRefPubMed

Estes, Z., & Barsalou, L. W. (2018). A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis of Spatial Interference From Linguistic Cues: Beyond Petrova et al. (2018). Psychological Science, 29(9), 1558–1564.PubMed

Friston, K. (2010). The free-energy principle: a unified brain theory? Nature reviews neuroscience, 11(2), 127.PubMed

Galati, A., & Avraamides, M. N. (2013). Flexible spatial perspective-taking: conversational partners weigh multiple cues in collaborative tasks. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 618.PubMedPubMedCentral

Gallese, V. (2009). Motor abstraction: A neuroscientific account of how action goals and intentions are mapped and understood. Psychological Research PRPF, 73(4), 486–498.

Gallese, V., & Lakoff, G. (2005). The brain’s concepts: The role of the sensorimotor system in conceptual knowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 21, 455–479.

Gianelli, C., Farnè, A., Salemme, R., Jeannerod, M., & Roy, A. C. (2011). The agent is right: when motor embodied cognition is space-dependent. PLoS One, 23, e25036.

Gianelli, C., Marzocchi, M., & Borghi, A. M. (2017). Grasping the agent’s perspective: A kinematics investigation of linguistic perspective in Italian and German. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 42. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00042.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Gianelli, C., Scorolli, C., & Borghi, A. M. (2013). Acting in perspective: The role of body and language as social tools. Psychological Research, 77(1), 40–52.PubMed

Glenberg, A. M. (2015). Few believe the world is flat: How embodiment is changing the scientific understanding of cognition. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue Canadienne de Psychologie Expérimentale, 69(2), 165.PubMed

Glenberg, A. M., Witt, J. K., & Metcalfe, J. (2013). From the revolution to embodiment: 25 years of cognitive psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8, 573–585.PubMed

Hamilton, A. F. D. C., Kessler, K., & Creem-Regehr, S. H. (2014). Perspective taking: building a neurocognitive framework for integrating the “social” and the “spatial”. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 8, 403.PubMedPubMedCentral

Harpaintner, M., Trumpp, N. M., & Kiefer, M. (2018). The semantic content of abstract concepts: A property listing study of 296 abstract words. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1748. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01748CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Jackson, P. L., Meltzoff, A. N., & Decety, J. (2006). Neural circuits involved in imitation and perspective-taking. Neuroimage, 31(1), 429–439.PubMedPubMedCentral

Kaup, B., & Zwaan, R. A. (2003). Effects of negation and situational presence on the accessibility of text information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29(3), 439.PubMed

Kessler, K., & Rutherford, H. (2010). The two forms of visuo-spatial perspective taking are differently embodied and subserve different spatial prepositions. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00213. (Special Issue on: “Embodied and Grounded Cognition”).CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

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.

Lebois, L. A., Wilson-Mendenhall, C. D., & Barsalou, L. W. (2015). Are automatic conceptual cores the gold standard of semantic processing? The context-dependence of spatial meaning in grounded congruency effects. Cognitive Science, 39(8), 1764–1801.PubMed

Leung, A. K.-Y., & Cohen, D. (2007). The soft embodiment of culture: Camera angles and motion through time and space. Psychological Science, 18(9), 824–830.PubMed

Levinson, S. C. (1996). Frames of reference and Molyneux’s question: Crosslinguistic evidence. Language and Space, 109, 169.

Levinson, S. C. (2003). Space in language and cognition: explorations in cognitive Diversity. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2014). Traversing psychological distance. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(7), 364–369.PubMed

Louwerse, M., & Connell, L. (2011). A taste of words: Linguistic context and perceptual simulation predict the modality of words. Cognitive Science, 35(2), 381–398.PubMed

Lupyan, G. (2019). Language as a source of abstract concepts: Comment on “Words as social tools: Language, sociality and inner grounding in abstract concepts” by Anna M. Borghi et al. Physics of Life Reviews, 29, 154–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2019.05.001.CrossRefPubMed

MacWhinney, B. (2005). 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.

Maeda, F., Kleiner-Fisman, G., & Pascual-Leone, A. (2002). Motor facilitation while observing hand actions: specificity of the effect and role of observer’s orientation. Journal of Neurophysiology, 87(3), 1329–1335.PubMed

Martin, A. (2007). The representation of object concepts in the brain. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 25–45.PubMed

Matheson, H. E., & Barsalou, L. W. (2018). Embodiment and grounding in cognitive neuroscience. In J. Wixted, E. Phelps, L. Davachi, J. Serences, S. Ghetti, S. Thompson-Schill, & E. J. Wagenmakers (Eds.), The Stevens’ Handbook of experimental psychology and cognitive neuroscience (4th ed., Vol. 3, pp. 1–32). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

McRae, K., Cree, G. S., Seidenberg, M. S., & McNorgan, C. (2005). Semantic feature production norms for a large set of living and nonliving things. Behavior Research Methods, 37(4), 547–559.PubMed

Murphy, G. (2004). The big book of concepts. Cambridge: MIT press.

Palmer, S., Rosch, E., & Chase, P. (1981). Canonical perspective and the perception of objects. In J. Long & A. Baddeley (Eds.), Attention and performance IX. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

Papeo, L., Corradi-Dell’Acqua, C., & Rumiati, R. I. (2011). “She” is not like “I”: the tie between language and action is in our imagination. Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 23(12), 3939–3948.PubMed

Papies, E. K. (2013). Tempting food words activate eating simulations. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 838.PubMedPubMedCentral

Pecher, D., Zeelenberg, R., & Barsalou, L. W. (2003). Verifying different-modality properties for concepts produces switching costs. Psychological Science, 14(2), 119–124.PubMed

Posner, M. I., & Snyder, C. R. R. (1975). Attention and cognitive control. In R. L. Solso (Ed.), Information processing and cognition (pp. 205–223). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Saxe, R., Jamal, N., & Powell, L. (2005). My body or yours? The effect of visual perspective on cortical body representations. Cerebral Cortex, 16(2), 178–182.PubMed

Spivey, M. J., & Geng, J. J. (2001). Oculomotor mechanisms activated by imagery and memory: Eye movements to absent objects. Psychological Research, 65(4), 235–241.PubMed

Tarr, M. J., & Bülthoff, H. H. (1995). Is human object recognition better described by geon structural descriptions or by multiple views? Comment on Biederman and Gerhardstein (1993). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 6.

Tenenbaum, J. B., Griffiths, T. L., & Kemp, C. (2006). Theory-based Bayesian models of inductive learning and reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(7), 309–318.PubMed

Tversky, B., & Hard, B. M. (2009). Embodied and disembodied cognition: Spatial perspective-taking. Cognition, 110(1), 124–129.PubMed

Vanoverberghe, V., & Storms, G. (2003). Feature importance in feature generation and typicality rating. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 15(1), 1–18.

Vogt, S., Taylor, P., & Hopkins, B. (2003). Visuomotor priming by pictures of hand postures: Perspective matters. Neuropsychologia, 41(8), 941–951.PubMed

Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(4), 625–636.

Wu, S., Barr, D. J., Gann, T. M., & Keysar, B. (2013). How culture influences perspective taking: differences in correction, not integration. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 7, 822.PubMedPubMedCentral

Wu, L. L., & Barsalou, L. W. (2009). Perceptual simulation in conceptual combination: Evidence from property generation. Acta psychologica, 132(2), 173–189.PubMed

Wu, S., & Keysar, B. (2007). The effect of culture on perspective taking. Psychological Science, 18(7), 600–606.PubMed

Yoon, S. O., Koh, S., & Brown-Schmidt, S. (2012). Influence of perspective and goals on reference production in conversation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 699–707. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0262-6.CrossRef

Titel: Perspective in the conceptualization of categories
Auteurs: Anna M. Borghi
Lawrence Barsalou
Publicatiedatum: 26-11-2019
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 2/2021
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-019-01269-0

Andere artikelen Uitgave 2/2021

Multisensory integration and behavioral stability

Original Article

Gender stereotypes and incremental beliefs in STEM and non-STEM students in three countries: relationships with performance in cognitive tasks

Original Article

Symbol grounding of number words in the subitization range

Original Article

Human appetitive Pavlovian-to-instrumental transfer: a goal-directed account

Review

Decoding identity from motion: how motor similarities colour our perception of self and others

Open Access
Original Article

Focusing on the face or getting distracted by social signals? The effect of distracting gestures on attentional focus in natural interaction

Original Article