Context matters: How do task demands modulate the recruitment of sensorimotor information during language processing?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many theories of semantic representation propose that simulations of sensorimotor experience contribute to language processing. This can be seen in the body-object interaction effect (BOI; how easily the human body can interact with a word’s referent). Words with high BOI ratings (e.g., ball) are processed more quickly than words with low BOI ratings (e.g., cloud) in various language tasks. This effect can be modulated by task demands. Previous research established that when asked to decide if a word is an object (entity condition), a BOI effect is observed, but when asked to decide if a word is an action (action condition), there is no BOI effect. It is unclear whether the null behavioral effect in the action condition reflects top-down modulation of task-relevant sensorimotor information or the absence of bottom-up activation of sensorimotor simulations. We investigated this question using EEG. In Experiment 1 we replicated the previous behavioral findings. In Experiment 2, 50 participants were assigned to either the entity or action conditions and responded to the same word stimuli. In both conditions we observed differences in ERP components related to the BOI effect. In the entity condition the P2 mean amplitude was significantly more positive for high compared to low BOI words. In the action condition the N400 peak latency was significantly later for high compared to low BOI words. Our findings suggest that BOI information is generated bottom-up regardless of task demands and modulated by top-down processes that recruit sensorimotor information relevant to the task decision.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".