ArticlePeerJ2015
Contributions to a neurophysiology of meaning: the interpretation of written messages could be an automatic stimulus-reaction mechanism before becoming conscious processing of information.
Article in PeerJ, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background. Even though the interpretation of natural language messages is generally conceived as the result of a conscious processing of the message content, the influence of unconscious factors is also well known. What is still insufficiently known is the way such factors work. We have tackled interpretation assuming it is a process, whose basic features are the same for the whole humankind, and employing a naturalistic approach (careful observation of phenomena in conditions the closest to "natural" ones, and precise description before and independently of data statistical analysis). Methodology. Our field research involved a random sample of 102 adults. We presented them with a complete real world-like case of written communication using unabridged message texts. We collected data (participants' written reports on their interpretations) in controlled conditions through a specially designed questionnaire (closed and opened answers); then, we treated it through qualitative and quantitative methods. Principal Findings. We gathered some evidence that, in written message interpretation, between reading and the attribution of conscious meaning, an intermediate step could exist (we named it "disassembling") which looks like an automatic reaction to the text words/expressions. Thus, the process of interpretation would be a discontinuous sequence of three steps having different natures: the initial "decoding" step (i.e., reading, which requires technical abilities), disassembling (the automatic reaction, an unconscious passage) and the final conscious attribution of meaning. If this is true, words and expressions would firstly function like physical stimuli, before being taken into account as symbols. Such hypothesis, once confirmed, could help explaining some links between the cultural (human communication) and the biological (stimulus-reaction mechanisms as the basis for meanings) dimension of humankind.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.