↓ Skip to main content

Exploring Modality Switching Effects in Negated Sentences: Further Evidence for Grounded Representations

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Exploring Modality Switching Effects in Negated Sentences: Further Evidence for Grounded Representations
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00093
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lea A. Hald, Ian Hocking, David Vernon, Julie-Ann Marshall, Alan Garnham

Abstract

Theories of embodied cognition (e.g., Perceptual Symbol Systems Theory; Barsalou, 1999, 2009) suggest that modality specific simulations underlie the representation of concepts. Supporting evidence comes from modality switch costs: participants are slower to verify a property in one modality (e.g., auditory, BLENDER-loud) after verifying a property in a different modality (e.g., gustatory, CRANBERRIES-tart) compared to the same modality (e.g., LEAVES-rustling, Pecher et al., 2003). Similarly, modality switching costs lead to a modulation of the N400 effect in event-related potentials (ERPs; Collins et al., 2011; Hald et al., 2011). This effect of modality switching has also been shown to interact with the veracity of the sentence (Hald et al., 2011). The current ERP study further explores the role of modality match/mismatch on the processing of veracity as well as negation (sentences containing "not"). Our results indicate a modulation in the ERP based on modality and veracity, plus an interaction. The evidence supports the idea that modality specific simulations occur during language processing, and furthermore suggest that these simulations alter the processing of negation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 3%
Colombia 1 3%
Portugal 1 3%
France 1 3%
Unknown 34 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 24%
Professor 6 16%
Researcher 6 16%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Student > Master 4 11%
Other 7 18%
Unknown 2 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 22 58%
Linguistics 4 11%
Neuroscience 3 8%
Computer Science 1 3%
Unspecified 1 3%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 5 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 February 2013.
All research outputs
#17,681,263
of 22,699,621 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#20,195
of 29,454 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#210,126
of 280,695 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#756
of 969 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,699,621 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,454 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 280,695 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 969 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.