ReviewCognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience2011
A lifespan perspective on semantic processing of concrete concepts: does a sensory/motor model have the potential to bridge the gap?
Review in Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Chinese English language learners' vocabulary retention: Investigating the effectiveness of neuro/metacognitive and socio-cultural strategies.BMC psychology · 2024Article
- Kick-starting concept formation with intrinsically motivated learning: the grounding by competence acquisition hypothesis.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2023Article
- Body-object interaction effect in word recognition and its relationship with screen time in Chinese children.Reading and writing · 2022Article
- The Mental Maxwell Relations: A Thermodynamic Allegory for Higher Brain Functions.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2022Article
- Developing embodied cognition: insights from children's concepts and language processing.Frontiers in psychology · 2014Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Research regarding semantic knowledge of objects is often conducted independently in children and adults. Review of these bodies of evidence suggests that the two literatures are often complementary. It seems critical to determine what we can learn from a developmental perspective, toward the common goal of understanding semantic organization. Here we focus on the proposal that semantic knowledge about concrete concepts may be built on the foundation of sensory/motor processes. In particular, we focus on a moderate formulation of this viewpoint, the sensory/motor model of semantic representations of objects (e.g., Gainotti 2007; Martin 2007), which has been examined utilizing behavioral, neuroimaging, and neuropsychological evidence. Taken together, behavioral and neuroimaging studies with infants, older children, and adults have suggested that patterns laid down in early childhood remain salient throughout the lifespan and may also predict patterns of deficit that emerge following brain injury.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21842446What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.