The process of understanding a word engages two broad mental systems. Early on, the linguistic system activates linguistically related concepts. For instance, a word such as ‘branch’ could afford relevant concepts such as ELEMENT and GROUP. Next, a few milliseconds later, the embodied system begins activating sensory, motor and affective connections. For the word ‘branch’, this could include visualizations of verticality and connections in space. Both the linguistic and the embodied system have been extensively demonstrated in experiments. The centre of the current research now is the interplay between the systems. The interplay is relevant because it informs about the nature of each in turn, and about the reasons for both co-existing. The engagement of each system varies as a function of task, stimulus, and individual differences. For instance, the embodied system becomes more engaged with deeper versus shallower semantic tasks, as well as with concrete versus abstract words. Also, expertise in physical domains leads to field-specific concept representations. Further, women appear to utilize the linguistic system more intensively than men do. Individual differences in particular will be the centre of this PhD project. In internet- and lab-based experiments, we will run various semantic tasks, before collecting linguistic and sensorimotor measurements. For accuracy, our experimental designs will include variables related to task and stimulus, to be analysed alongside individual variables. Last, this research will shed light on how different systems can interplay for a specific process.

1. Linguistic and embodied systems
in conceptual processing:
Role of individual differences
Pablo Bernabeu
Embodied Cognition Lab
Supervisors: Dermot Lynott, Louise Connell
Lancaster University, 29th Nov 2018

2. Terminology
Levels of processing:
From Bernabeu et al. (2017)

3. Terminology
Levels of processing:
Lexical
From Bernabeu et al. (2017)

4. Terminology
Levels of processing:
Lexical
Semantic
From Bernabeu et al. (2017)

5. Terminology
Systems:
Lexical
Semantic
From Pulvermuller (2013)

6. Terminology
Systems:
LINGUISTIC
Lexical
Semantic
From Pulvermuller (2013)

7. Terminology
Systems:
LINGUISTIC EMBODIED
Lexical
Semantic
From Pulvermuller (2013)

8. DOG PARADOX GRAB
pet irony take
walk text force
cute surprise coffee
Distributional semantics

9. DOG PARADOX GRAB
Latent Semantic Analysis (http:// lsa.colorado.edu)
pet irony take
walk text force
cute surprise coffee
Distributional semantics

10. DOG PARADOX GRAB
CORPUS: Populations (Louwerse & Zwaan, 2009)
RT: animals, body, geography (Lund & Burgess, 1996) *
BRAIN: Voxel-level neural activation predicted
by distributional statistics (Mitchell et al., 2008)
Latent Semantic Analysis (http:// lsa.colorado.edu)
pet irony take
walk text force
cute surprise coffee
Distributional semantics

11. DOG PARADOX GRAB
CORPUS: Populations (Louwerse & Zwaan, 2009)
RT: animals, body, geography (Lund & Burgess, 1996) *
BRAIN: Voxel-level neural activation predicted
by distributional statistics (Mitchell et al., 2008)
* Symbol-grounding problem
Latent Semantic Analysis (http:// lsa.colorado.edu)
pet irony take
walk text force
cute surprise coffee
Distributional semantics

12. DOG PARADOX GRAB
CORPUS: Populations (Louwerse & Zwaan, 2009)
RT: animals, body, geography (Lund & Burgess, 1996) *
BRAIN: Voxel-level neural activation predicted
by distributional statistics (Mitchell et al., 2008)
* Symbol-grounding problem
Latent Semantic Analysis (http:// lsa.colorado.edu)
pet irony take
walk text force
cute surprise coffee
Distributional semantics
Personal &
external
EXPERIENCE

13. DOG DOG
PARADOX PARADOX
GRAB GRAB
CORPUS: Populations (Louwerse & Zwaan, 2009)
RT: animals, body, geography (Lund & Burgess, 1996) *
BRAIN: Voxel-level neural activation predicted
by distributional statistics (Mitchell et al., 2008)
* Symbol-grounding problem
Latent Semantic Analysis (http:// lsa.colorado.edu)
pet irony take
walk text force
cute surprise coffee
Distributional semantics Embodied cognition
Personal &
external
EXPERIENCE

14. DOG DOG
PARADOX PARADOX
GRAB GRAB
CORPUS: Populations (Louwerse & Zwaan, 2009)
RT: animals, body, geography (Lund & Burgess, 1996) *
BRAIN: Voxel-level neural activation predicted
by distributional statistics (Mitchell et al., 2008)
* Symbol-grounding problem
Latent Semantic Analysis (http:// lsa.colorado.edu)
EMOTIONAL Kousta et al. (2011) * YES/NO
MOTOR Willems et al. (2011)
SENSORY Hald et al. (2011)
Simmons et al. (2007)
pet irony take
walk text force
cute surprise coffee
Distributional semantics Embodied cognition
‘Green’
Personal &
external
EXPERIENCE

15. DOG DOG
PARADOX PARADOX
GRAB GRAB
CORPUS: Populations (Louwerse & Zwaan, 2009)
RT: animals, body, geography (Lund & Burgess, 1996) *
BRAIN: Voxel-level neural activation predicted
by distributional statistics (Mitchell et al., 2008)
* Symbol-grounding problem
Latent Semantic Analysis (http:// lsa.colorado.edu)
EMOTIONAL Kousta et al. (2011) * YES/NO
MOTOR Willems et al. (2011)
SENSORY Hald et al. (2011)
Simmons et al. (2007)
(Hickok, 2014;
Willems & Francken, 2012;
Mahon & Caramazza, 2008)
pet irony take
walk text force
cute surprise coffee
Distributional semantics Embodied cognition
‘Green’
* Causality question
Personal &
external
EXPERIENCE

16. From Barsalou et al. (2008)

17. From Barsalou et al. (2008)
Language

18. From Barsalou et al. (2008)
Language Simulation

19. Zwaan, Stanfield, and Yaxley (2002)
Sentence-picture verification
Object orientation effect (classic embodiment effect)
Group replication (Psychological Science Accelerator)

20. Zwaan, Stanfield, and Yaxley (2002)
Sentence-picture verification
He saw the eagle in the sky
Object orientation effect
Group replication (Psychological Science Accelerator)

21. Object orientation effect
Group replication (Psychological Science Accelerator)
Zwaan, Stanfield, and Yaxley (2002)
Sentence-picture verification
He saw the eagle in the sky

22. Object orientation effect
Group replication (Psychological Science Accelerator)
Zwaan, Stanfield, and Yaxley (2002)
Sentence-picture verification: ‘Was this object in the sentence?’
[congruent]

23. Object orientation effect
Group replication (Psychological Science Accelerator)
Zwaan, Stanfield, and Yaxley (2002)
Sentence-picture verification: ‘Was this object in the sentence?’
[INcongruent]

24. Object orientation effect
Group replication (Psychological Science Accelerator)
Zwaan, Stanfield, and Yaxley (2002)
Sentence-picture verification: ‘Was this object in the sentence?’
[congruent]
He saw the eagle in the sky
[INcongruent]
• ORIGINAL RESULTS: Faster responses for congruent trials

25. Object orientation effect
Group replication (Psychological Science Accelerator)
Zwaan, Stanfield, and Yaxley (2002) replicated across 14 languages (NEng = 1,900)
Sentence-picture verification: ‘Was this object in the sentence?’
[congruent]
He saw the eagle in the sky
[INcongruent]
• ORIGINAL RESULTS: Faster responses for congruent trials.
• Interpretation: Mental simulation of orientation while reading

26. Object orientation effect
Group replication (Psychological Science Accelerator)
Zwaan, Stanfield, and Yaxley (2002) replicated across 14 languages (NEng = 1,900)
Sentence-picture verification: ‘Was this object in the sentence?’
[congruent]
He saw the eagle in the sky
[INcongruent]
• ORIGINAL RESULTS: Faster responses for congruent trials.
• Interpretation: Mental simulation of orientation while reading
• ADDITION: Individual differences in spatial cognition,
particularly mental rotation

27. Object orientation effect
Group replication (Psychological Science Accelerator)
Zwaan, Stanfield, and Yaxley (2002) replicated across 14 languages (NEng = 1,900)
Sentence-picture verification: ‘Was this object in the sentence?’
[congruent]
He saw the eagle in the sky
[INcongruent]
• ORIGINAL RESULTS: Faster responses for congruent trials.
• Interpretation: Mental simulation of orientation while reading
• ADDITION: Individual differences in spatial cognition,
particularly mental rotation

28. Object orientation effect
Group replication (Psychological Science Accelerator)
Zwaan, Stanfield, and Yaxley (2002) replicated across 14 languages (NEng = 1,900)
Sentence-picture verification: ‘Was this object in the sentence?’
[congruent]
He saw the eagle in the sky
[INcongruent]
• ORIGINAL RESULTS: Faster responses for congruent trials.
• Interpretation: Mental simulation of orientation while reading
• ADDITION: Individual differences in spatial cognition,
particularly mental rotation
From mercercognitivepsychology.pbworks.com

29. Psychological Science Accelerator
• Openly sourced projects, from pre-registration through testing etc.
• Aims: more robust analysis, super-sized samples
• Open for publishing project or just collaborating
• Materials and procedure created by lead lab, used by all others
(translated to each language)

30. DOG DOG
PARADOX PARADOX
GRAB GRAB
CORPUS: Populations (Louwerse & Zwaan, 2009)
RT: animals, body, geogra. (Lund & Burgess, 1996) *
BRAIN: Voxel-level neural activation predicted
by distributional statistics (Mitchell et al, 2008)
! Symbol-grounding problem
Latent Semantic Analysis (http:// lsa.colorado.edu)
EMOTIONAL Kousta et al (2011) * YES/NO
MOTOR Willems et al (2011)
SENSORY Hald et al (2011)
Simmons et al (2007)
(Hickok, 2014; Willems &
Francken, 2012; Mahon &
Caramazza, 2008)
pet irony take
walk text force
cute surprise coffee
Distributional semantics Embodied cognition
‘Green’
! Causality question

31. DOG DOG
PARADOX PARADOX
GRAB GRAB
CORPUS: Populations (Louwerse & Zwaan, 2009)
RT: animals, body, geogra. (Lund & Burgess, 1996) *
BRAIN: Voxel-level neural activation predicted
by distributional statistics (Mitchell et al, 2008)
! Symbol-grounding problem
Latent Semantic Analysis (http:// lsa.colorado.edu)
EMOTIONAL Kousta et al (2011) * YES/NO
MOTOR Willems et al (2011)
SENSORY Hald et al (2011)
Simmons et al (2007)
(Hickok, 2014; Willems &
Francken, 2012; Mahon &
Caramazza, 2008)
pet irony take
walk text force
cute surprise coffee
Distributional semantics Embodied cognition
‘Green’
! Causality question
DOG DOG
PARADOX PARADOX
GRAB GRAB

32. Linguistic and embodied interplay
• Linguistic co-occurrences processed before perceptual relationships
Production (Santos et al., 2011) & comprehension (Louwerse & Connell, 2013)

33. • Linguistic co-occurrences processed before perceptual relationships
Production (Santos et al., 2011) & comprehension (Louwerse & Connell, 2013)
• Depth of semantics: Language enough for shallow tasks, whereas
simulation necessary for deeper tasks
Sensibility judgment vs interpretation (Connell & Lynott, 2013)
Linguistic and embodied interplay

34. • Linguistic co-occurrences processed before perceptual relationships
Production (Santos et al., 2011) & comprehension (Louwerse & Connell, 2013)
• Depth of semantics: Language enough for shallow tasks, whereas
simulation necessary for deeper tasks
Sensibility judgment vs interpretation (Connell & Lynott, 2013)
• Visualisers & verbalisers (Dils & Boroditsky, 2010)
Linguistic and embodied interplay

35. • Linguistic co-occurrences processed before perceptual relationships
Production (Santos et al., 2011) & comprehension (Louwerse & Connell, 2013)
• Depth of semantics: Language enough for shallow tasks, whereas
simulation necessary for deeper tasks
Sensibility judgment vs interpretation (Connell & Lynott, 2013)
• Visualisers & verbalisers (Dils & Boroditsky, 2010)
• Motor expertise (Beilock et al., 2008)
• Linguistic expertise (Pexman & Yap, 2018)
Linguistic and embodied interplay

36. Linguistic and embodied interplay
• Linguistic co-occurrences processed before perceptual relationships
Production (Santos et al., 2011) & comprehension (Louwerse & Connell, 2013)
• Depth of semantics: Language enough for shallow tasks, whereas
simulation necessary for deeper tasks
Sensibility judgment vs interpretation (Connell & Lynott, 2013)
• Visualisers & verbalisers (Dils & Boroditsky, 2010)
• Motor expertise (Beilock et al., 2008)
• Linguistic expertise (Pexman & Yap, 2018)
• Gender (Hutchinson & Louwerse, 2013)

37. 5 modalities
3 Principal Components
- Louwerse and Connell (2011)

38. Conceptual modality switch effect
Toll for shifting mod-specific systems. Critical manipulation: cross-trial.
Property verification: ‘Typical?’
Lemony Aftertaste  YES/NO
[perceptual modality match] Juicy Apple  YES/NO
Glossy Screen  YES/NO
[perceptual modality mismatch] Cracking Leaves  YES/NO
[Transitions covert; bold added to targets]
RT: Pecher et al. (2003); Lynott & Connell (2009)
ERPs: Collins et al. (2011); Hald et al. (2011); Hald et al. (2013); Bernabeu et al. (2017)
5 modalities
3 Principal Components
- Louwerse and Connell (2011)

39. Conceptual modality switch effect
Toll for shifting mod-specific systems. Critical manipulation: cross-trial.
Property verification: ‘Typical?’
Lemony Aftertaste  YES/NO
[perceptual modality match] Juicy Apple  YES/NO
Glossy Screen  YES/NO
[perceptual modality mismatch] Cracking Leaves  YES/NO
[Transitions covert; bold added to targets]
RT: Pecher et al. (2003); Lynott & Connell (2009)
ERPs: Collins et al. (2011); Hald et al. (2011); Hald et al. (2013); Bernabeu et al. (2017)
Interplay of systems (Louwerse & Connell, 2011)
Linguistic and Embodied factor loadings from corpus used to predict switching costs
RESULTS:
Linguistic shifts  + RT
Embodied shifts  – RT
(R2 = .70)
Two systems: speed vs detail
(cf. Ferreira & Patson, 2007)
5 modalities
3 Principal Components:
Visuohaptic,
Olfactory-gustatory,
Auditory
- Louwerse and Connell (2011)

40. Task and stimulus variables extensively probed;

41. Task and stimulus variables extensively probed;
turn to individual differences.

42. Task and stimulus variables extensively probed;
turn to individual differences.
Summing up: current degrees of knowledge

43. Task and stimulus variables extensively probed;
turn to individual differences.
Summing up: current degrees of knowledge

44. Task and stimulus variables extensively probed;
turn to individual differences.
Summing up: current degrees of knowledge
• General patterns in linguistic and embodied system

45. Task and stimulus variables extensively probed;
turn to individual differences.
Summing up: current degrees of knowledge
• General patterns in linguistic and embodied system
• Individual variability

46. Task and stimulus variables extensively probed;
turn to individual differences.
Summing up: current degrees of knowledge
• General patterns in linguistic and embodied system
• Individual variability
• Interaction between individual differences and both systems

47. Individual differences

48. Individual differences
Influence of individuals’ linguistic and perceptual traits on the
interplay between linguistic and embodied systems.

49. Individual differences
Influence of individuals’ linguistic and perceptual traits on the
interplay between linguistic and embodied systems.
• Process of interest: post-lexical conceptual processing

50. Individual differences
Influence of individuals’ linguistic and perceptual traits on the
interplay between linguistic and embodied systems.
• Process of interest: post-lexical conceptual processing
• Paradigms: reading comprehension and perceptual simulation
• Tasks: shallower and deeper semantic tasks
(sensibility, concreteness, interpretation judgments)

51. Individual differences
Influence of individuals’ linguistic and perceptual traits on the
interplay between linguistic and embodied systems.
• Process of interest: post-lexical conceptual processing
• Paradigms: reading comprehension and perceptual simulation
• Tasks: shallower and deeper semantic tasks
(sensibility, concreteness, interpretation judgments)
• Task and stimulus variables alongside individual differences

52. Individual differences
Influence of individuals’ linguistic and perceptual traits on the
interplay between linguistic and embodied systems.
• Process of interest: post-lexical conceptual processing
• Paradigms: reading comprehension and perceptual simulation
• Tasks: shallower and deeper semantic tasks
(sensibility, concreteness, interpretation judgments)
• Task and stimulus variables alongside individual differences
• Individual differences collected after the core experimental tasks

53. Individual differences
Influence of individuals’ linguistic and perceptual traits on the
interplay between linguistic and embodied systems.
• Process of interest: post-lexical conceptual processing
• Paradigms: reading comprehension and perceptual simulation
• Tasks: shallower and deeper semantic tasks
(sensibility, concreteness, interpretation judgments)
• Task and stimulus variables alongside individual differences
• Individual differences collected after the core experimental tasks
• Linguistic: lexical decision, vocabulary size, reading and writing habits…

54. Individual differences
Influence of individuals’ linguistic and perceptual traits on the
interplay between linguistic and embodied systems.
• Process of interest: post-lexical conceptual processing
• Paradigms: reading comprehension and perceptual simulation
• Tasks: shallower and deeper semantic tasks
(sensibility, concreteness, interpretation judgments)
• Task and stimulus variables alongside individual differences
• Individual differences collected after the core experimental tasks
• Linguistic: lexical decision, vocabulary size, reading and writing habits…
• Sensory, motor, affective: spatial cognitive skills, exercising habits…

55. Individual differences
Influence of individuals’ linguistic and perceptual traits on the
interplay between linguistic and embodied systems.
• Process of interest: post-lexical conceptual processing
• Paradigms: reading comprehension and perceptual simulation
• Tasks: shallower and deeper semantic tasks
(sensibility, concreteness, interpretation judgments)
• Task and stimulus variables alongside individual differences
• Individual differences collected after the core experimental tasks
• Linguistic: lexical decision, vocabulary size, reading and writing habits…
• Sensory, motor, affective: spatial cognitive skills, exercising habits…
• General cognitive: cognitive control (e.g., AX-CPT task), IQ…

56. Literature-based hypotheses
Linguistic individual differences:
Higher skill  Faster RT in semantic tasks (Pexman & Yap, 2018)

57. Literature-based hypotheses
Linguistic individual differences:
Higher skill  Faster RT in semantic tasks (Pexman & Yap, 2018)
Sensory, motor, affective individual differences:
Higher skill  More perceptual simulation in semantic tasks
(Dils & Boroditsky, 2010)

58. Literature-based hypotheses
Linguistic individual differences:
Higher skill  Faster RT in semantic tasks (Pexman & Yap, 2018)
Sensory, motor, affective individual differences:
Higher skill  More perceptual simulation in semantic tasks
(Dils & Boroditsky, 2010)
Time

59. Literature-based hypotheses
Linguistic individual differences:
Higher skill  Faster RT in semantic tasks (Pexman & Yap, 2018)
Sensory, motor, affective individual differences:
Higher skill  More perceptual simulation in semantic tasks
(Dils & Boroditsky, 2010)
Time

60. Literature-based hypotheses
Linguistic individual differences:
Higher skill  Faster RT in semantic tasks (Pexman & Yap, 2018)
Sensory, motor, affective individual differences:
Higher skill  More perceptual simulation in semantic tasks
(Dils & Boroditsky, 2010)
Simulation
Time

61. Project plan
Phase 1: Individual variability and systems compatibility [On Internet]
Essential: Relative analysis across participants and conditions. Validates off-line measurement.

62. Project plan
Phase 1: Individual variability and systems compatibility [On Internet]
Essential: Relative analysis across participants and conditions. Validates off-line measurement.
Experiment 1.1: Akin to sentence-picture verification paradigm (above; Zwaan et
al., 2002)—matching advantage.

63. Project plan
Phase 1: Individual variability and systems compatibility [On Internet]
Essential: Relative analysis across participants and conditions. Validates off-line measurement.
Experiment 1.1: Akin to sentence-picture verification paradigm (above; Zwaan et
al., 2002)—matching advantage. Add individual differences analysis.

64. Hypotheses 1.1
MAIN EFFECT: Replication of original matching advantage
INTERACTION:
Greater perceptual experience  Larger matching advantage

65. Project plan
Phase 1: Individual variability and systems compatibility [On Internet]
Essential: Relative analysis across participants and conditions. Validates off-line measurement.
- Experiment 1.1: Akin to sentence-picture verification paradigm (above; Zwaan
et al., 2002)—matching advantage? Add individual differences analysis.
- Experiment 1.2: Participants generate properties for a concept (Santos et al.,
2011)—linguistic relations earlier, perceptual relations later?

66. Project plan
Phase 1: Individual variability and systems compatibility [On Internet]
Essential: Relative analysis across participants and conditions. Validates off-line measurement.
- Experiment 1.1: Akin to sentence-picture verification paradigm (above; Zwaan
et al., 2002)—matching advantage? Add individual differences analysis.
- Experiment 1.2: Participants generate properties for a concept (Santos et al.,
2011)—linguistic relations earlier, perceptual relations later? + Ind. Diffs.

67. Hypotheses 1.2
Replication of original Time – System interaction:
Linguistic relations produced earlier, perceptual relations later
System – Individual differences interaction:
• Greater linguistic experience  More linguistic relations
throughout time course
• Greater perceptual experience  More perceptual relations
throughout time course

68. Project plan
Phase 1: Individual variability and systems compatibility [On Internet]
Essential: Relative analysis across participants and conditions. Validates off-line measurement.
- Experiment 1.1: Akin to sentence-picture verification paradigm (above; Zwaan
et al., 2002)—matching advantage? Add individual differences analysis.
- Experiment 1.2: Participants generate properties for a concept (Santos et al.,
2011)—linguistic relations earlier, perceptual relations later? + Ind. Diffs.
Phase 2: Causality of each system and individual differences [In lab]
Essential: Online measurement as semantic processing unfolds.

69. Project plan
Phase 1: Individual variability and systems compatibility [On Internet]
Essential: Relative analysis across participants and conditions. Validates off-line measurement.
- Experiment 1.1: Akin to sentence-picture verification paradigm (above; Zwaan
et al., 2002)—matching advantage? Add individual differences analysis.
- Experiment 1.2: Participants generate properties for a concept (Santos et al.,
2011)—linguistic relations earlier, perceptual relations later? + Ind. Diffs.
Phase 2: Causality of each system and individual differences [In lab]
Essential: Online measurement as semantic processing unfolds.
- Experiment 2.1. Tasks: (1) Is this an actual word? | (2) How concrete is it?
TMS: Linguistic and perceptual resources briefly impaired right during task,
tapping into systems’ functional roles (Devlin et al., 2003; Vukovic et al., 2017).
Semantics impaired?

70. Project plan
Phase 1: Individual variability and systems compatibility [On Internet]
Essential: Relative analysis across participants and conditions. Validates off-line measurement.
- Experiment 1.1: Akin to sentence-picture verification paradigm (above; Zwaan
et al., 2002)—matching advantage? Add individual differences analysis.
- Experiment 1.2: Participants generate properties for a concept (Santos et al.,
2011)—linguistic relations earlier, perceptual relations later? + Ind. Diffs.
Phase 2: Causality of each system and individual differences [In lab]
Essential: Online measurement as semantic processing unfolds.
- Experiment 2.1. Tasks: (1) Is this an actual word? | (2) How concrete is it?
TMS: Linguistic and perceptual resources briefly impaired right during task,
tapping into systems’ functional roles (Devlin et al., 2003; Vukovic et al., 2017).
Semantics impaired? + Interaction with individual differences analysed.

71. Hypotheses 2.1
Replication of original System – Task interaction:
Reducing motor resources impairs semantic but not lexical processing
System – Task – Individual differences interaction:
• Reducing linguistic resources impairs semantic processing
for verbalisers but not for others.

72. Barsalou, Santos, Simmons, & Wilson (2008) Language and simulation in conceptual processing…
Bernabeu, Willems, & Louwerse (2017) Modality switch effects emerge early and increase…
Collins, Pecher, Zeelenberg, & Coulson (2011) Modality Switching in a Property Verification …
Connell & Lynott (2013) Flexible and fast: Linguistic shortcut affects both shallow and deep …
Devlin, Matthews, & Rushworth (2003) Semantic processing in the left inferior cortex: a …
Dils & Boroditsky (2010) Visual motion aftereffect from understanding language.
Hald, Marshall, Janssen, & Garnham (2011) Switching Modalities in A Sentence Verification …
Hickok (2014) The myth of mirror neurons: The real neuroscience of communication and ...
Louwerse & Connell (2009) A taste of words: Linguistic context and perceptual simulation …
Louwerse & Zwaan (2009) Language encodes geographical information.
Lund & Burgess (1996) Producing high-dimensional semantic spaces from lexical cooccurrence.
Lynott & Connell (2009) Modality exclusivity norms for 423 object properties.
References (1/2)

73. Mahon & Caramazza (2008) A critical look at the embodied cognition hypothesis and a new …
Mitchell, Shinkareva, Carlson, Chang, Malave, … Mason (2008) Predicting human brain …
Pecher, Zeelenberg, & Barsalou (2003) Verifying different-modality properties for concepts …
Pulvermuller (2013) How neurons make meaning: brain mechanisms for embodied and abstract…
Santos, Chaigneau, Simmons,, & Barsalou (2011) Property generation reflects word association…
Simmons, Hamann, Harenski, Hu, & Barsalou (2008) fMRI evidence for word association and …
Simmons, Ramjee, Beauchamp, McRae, Martin, & Barsalou (2007) A common neural substrate …
Vukovic, Feurra, Shpektor, Myachykov, & Shtyrov (2017) Primary motor cortex functionally …
Willems & Francken (2012) Embodied cognition: taking the next step.
Willems, Labruna, D’Esposito, Ivry, & Casasanto (2011) A functional role for the motor system …
Zwaan, Stanfield, & Yaxley (2002) Language Comprehenders Mentally Represent the Shapes of…
References (2/2)