<915391CC348D5A F F815B312E706466>

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "<915391CC348D5A F F815B312E706466>"

さみさわまつ
5 years ago
Views:

1 33 1. situation model e.g. Zwaan & Radvansky, grounded cognition perspective Borghi, Glenberg, and Kaschak 2004 You are driving a car. You are fueling a car. car

2 34 e.g., steering wheel e.g., tires e.g., garage Borghi Brunyé, Ditman, Mahoney, Augustyn, and Taylor 2009 I You He e.g., You are slicing the tomato. Brunyé, Ditman, Mahoney, & Taylor, 2011 Beveridge & Pickering, 2013 Ditman, Brunyé, Mahoney, and Taylor e.g., Cohen, 1981; Engelkamp, 1998

3 35 pro-drop languages Harley, 2014 Sato and Bergen 2009, 2013 Brunyé et al Sato Experiment 1, 3 Experiment 2, 4 Sato Ditman et al Sato and Bergen 2013 Ditman et al Ditman et al. 2010

4 36 e.g., Paivio, Yuille, & Madigan, 1968 ; e.g., Bleasdale, 1987; Jessen, Heun, Erb, Granath, Klose, Papassotiropoulos, & Grodd, 2000; Van Schie, Wijers, Mars, Benjamins, Laurie, & Stowe, 2005 Glenberg and Kaschak 2002 e.g., e.g., Sidhu and Pexman 2016 Liu and Bergen 2016 Bergen, Lindsay, Matlock, and Narayanan 2007 e.g., Ditman et al Ditman Ditman et al N = 17 Ditman et al N =

5 Ditman et al : Protagonist 2 : Situation 3 : Action 1 36 Table 1 Glenberg and Kaschak Table 1 Sample texts used in Experiment Concreteness High Low Protagonist item { / / } 54 { / / } 31 Situation item Action item { / / } { / / }

6 PC Lenovo L530 PsychoPy ver ; Peirce, 2007 PC [n] / [n+1] 36 6 e.g., Bays, Wu, & Husain, Griffin Technology Power Mate Ditman et al L S Ditman et al d Ditman et al. 2010

7 39 5 d 0 1 Nuechterlein p 95 JASP ver H 1 H 0 BF 10 Jeffreys 1961 BF Table 2 F 2, 74 = 1.01, p =.36, 2 p =.03[.0001,.09], BF 10 = 0.11 F 1, 37 = 1.32, p =.26, 2 p =.03[.0001,.21], BF 10 = 0.21 F 2, 74 = 0.44, p =.64, 2 p =.01[.0001,.05], BF 10 = F 1, Table 2. Mean scores and standard errors of sensitivity (d ), response times (sec), and false alarm rate in the recognition test as a function of concreteness and pronoun. High First-person Second-person Third-person First-person Second-person Third-person N M SE M SE M SE M SE M SE M SE Action items: sensitivity Action items 1) : response time Protagonist items: sensitivity Protagonist items 1) : response time False alarm rate: new-object, old-verb False alarm rate: old-object, new-verb ) Correct responses for the old items were included in the analysis. Low

8 40 34 = 15.69, p <.001, 2 p =.32[.04,.56], BF 10 = F 1.77, = 0.09, p =.89, 2 p =.003[.00,.03], BF 10 = 0.05 F 2, 74 = 1.35, p =.27, 2 p =.04[.0009,.13], BF 10 = 2.51 F 2, 74 = 2.28, p =.11, 2 p =.06[.002,.16], BF 10 = 0.38 F 1, 37 = 0.40, p =.53, 2 p =.01[.00,.10], BF 10 = 0.20 F 2, 74 = 0.05 p =.95, 2 p =.001[.00,.0003], BF 10 = F 2, 56 = 3.86, p =.03, 2 p =.12[.01,.23], BF 10 = 0.02 F 1, 28 = 8.70, p =.006, =.24[.05,.41], BF 10 = 6.69 Fs < 1.79, 2 p s <.06 F 1, 37 = 70.83, p <.001, 2 p =.66[.43,.78], BF 10 = F 1, 37 = 0.19, p =.66, 2 p =.005[.00,.05], BF 10 = 0.03 F 1.75, = 0.46, p =.61, 2 p =.01[.00,.06], BF 10 = 0.11 F 1, 37 = 1.11, p =.30, 2 p =.03[.00,.18], BF 10 = F 2, 74 = 1.17, p =.32, 2 p =.03[.0003,.10], BF 10 = F 2, 74 = 0.67, p =.52, 2 p =.02[.0004,.078], BF 10 = F 2, 74 = 1.69, p =.19, 2 p =.04[.0003,.13], BF 10 = Ditman et al Ditman et al. 2010

9 41 Sato and Bergen 2013 Ditman et al Taylor & Zwaan 2008, 2009 Zwaan, Taylor, & de Boer, 2010 Brunyé, Ditman, Giles, Holmes, and Taylor 2016 Brunyé et al e.g., Masuda & Nisbett, 2001 Tajima and Duffield 2012

10 42 Sato and Bergen 2013 Ditman et al e.g., Paivio, 1991 e.g., Schwanenflugel & Shoben, 1983 Body-Object Interaction; e.g., Siakaluk, Pexman, Sears, Wilson, Locheed, & Owen, 2008 Jessen et al., 2000

11 43 Kersten & Earles, 2004; Reynolds & Flagg, 1976 Ditman et al e.g., Barsalou, 2008; Glenberg, 2010 Brunyé et al Zeelenberg and Pecher 2016 Glenberg, 2015; Goldinger, Papesh, Barnhart, Hansen, & Hout, Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, Bays, P. M., Wu, E. Y., & Husain, M. (2011). Storage and binding of object features in visual working memory. Neuropsychologia, 49,

12 44 Bergen, B. K., Lindsay, S., Matlock, T., & Narayanan, S. (2007). Spatial and linguistic aspects of visual imagery in sentence comprehension. Cognitive Science, 31, Beveridge, M. E. L., & Pickering, M. J. (2013). Perspective taking in language: Integrating the spatial and action domains. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 577. Bleasdale, F. A. (1987). Concreteness-dependent associative priming: Separate lexical organization for concrete and abstract words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13, Borghi, A. M., Glenberg, A. M., & Kaschak, M. P. (2004). Putting words in perspective. Memory and Cognition, 32, Brunyé, T. T., Ditman, T., Giles, G. E., Holmes, A., & Taylor, H. A. (2016). Mentally simulating narrative perspective is not universal or necessary for language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42, Brunyé, T. T., Ditman, T., Mahoney, C. R., & Taylor, H. A. (2011). Better you than I: Perspectives and emotion simulation during narrative comprehension. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 23, 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, Cohen, R. (1981). On the generality of some memory laws. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 22, Ditman, T., Brunyé, T. T., Mahoney, C. R., & Taylor, H. A. (2010). Simulating an enactment effect: Pronouns guide action simulation during narrative comprehension. Cognition, 115, Engelkamp, J. (1998). Memory for actions. Hove: Psychology Press. Glenberg, A. M. (2010). Embodiment as a unifying perspective for psychology. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 1, Glenberg, A. M. (2015). Few believe the world is flat: How embodiment is changing the scientific understanding of cognition. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69, Glenberg, A. M., & Kaschak, M. P. (2002). Grounding language in action. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 9, Goldinger, S. D., Papesh, M. H., Barnhart, A. H., Hansen, W. A., & Hout, M. C. (2016). The poverty of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 23, Harley, T. A. (2014). The psychology of language: From data to theory. Hove: Psychology Press. Jeffreys, H. (1961). Theory of Probability (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jessen, F., Heun, R., Erb, M., Granath, D.O., Klose, U., Papassotiropoulos, A., & Grodd, W. (2000). The concreteness effect: Evidence for dual coding and context availability. Brain and Language, 7, Kersten, A. W., & Earles, J. L. (2004). Semantic context influences memory for verbs more than memory for nouns. Memory and Cognition, 32, Liu, N., & Bergen, B. (2016). When do language comprehenders mentally simulate locations? Cognitive Linguistics, 27,

13 45 Masuda, T., & Nisbett, R. E. (2001). Attending holistically versus analytically: Comparing the context sensitivity of Japanese and Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, Nuechterlein, K. H. (1983). Signal detection in vigilance tasks and behavioral attributes among offspring of schizophrenic mothers and among hyperactive children. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 92, Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory: Retrospect and current status. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 45, Paivio, A., Yuille, J. C., & Madigan, S. A. (1968). Concreteness, imagery, and meaningfulness values for 925 nouns. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 76, Pecher, D., Zeelenberg, R., & Barsalou, L. W. (2004). Sensorimotor simulations underlie conceptual representations: Modality-specific effects of prior activation. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 11, Peirce, J. W. (2007). PsychoPy: Psychophysics software in Python. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 162, Reynolds, A. G., & Flagg, P. W. (1976). Recognition memory for elements of sentences. Memory and Cognition, 4, Sato, M., & Bergen, B. K. (2009). Does implicit grammatical person influence perspective in mental simulation? TL 109, Sato, M., & Bergen, B. K. (2013). The case of the missing pronouns: Does mentally simulated perspective play a functional role in the comprehension of person? Cognition, 127, Schwanenflugel, P., & Shoben, E. (1983). Differential context effects in the comprehension of abstract and concrete verbal materials. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 9, Siakaluk, P. D., Pexman, P. M., Sears, C. R., Wilson, K., Locheed, K., & Owen, W. J. (2008). The benefits of sensorimotor knowledge: Body-object interaction facilitates semantic processing. Cognitive Science, 32, Sidhu, D. M., & Pexman, P. M. (2016). Is moving more memorable than proving? Effects of embodiment and imagined enactment on verb memory. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, Tajima, Y., & Duffield, N. (2012). Linguistic versus cultural relativity: On Japanese-Chinese differences in picture description and recall. Cognitive Linguistics, 23, Taylor, L. J., & Zwaan, R. A. (2008). Motor resonance and linguistic focus. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, Taylor, L. J., & Zwaan, R. A. (2009). Action in cognition: The Case of language. Language and Cognition: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language and Cognitive Science, 1, Van Schie, H., Wijers, A. A., Mars, R. B., Benjamins, J. S., Laurie, A., & Stowe, L. A. (2005). Processing of visual semantic information to concrete words: Temporal dynamics and neural mechanisms indicated by event related brain potentials. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22, Zeelenberg, R., & Pecher, D. (2016). The role of motor action in memory for objects and words. In B.

14 46 Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation, Vol.64. (pp ). New York, NY: Academic Press. Zwaan, R. A., Taylor, L. J., & de Boer, M. (2010). Motor resonance as a function of narrative time: Further tests of the linguistic focus hypothesis. Brain and Language, 112, Zwaan, R. A., & Radvansky, G. A. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123,

Mizuki Kaneda and Naoyuki Osaka (Kyoto University) The Japanese Journal of Psychology 2007, Vol. 78, No. 3, pp

Mizuki Kaneda and Naoyuki Osaka (Kyoto University) The Japanese Journal of Psychology 2007, Vol. 78, No. 3, pp. 235-243 (Amano, S., & Kondo, T.) Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. New York: