ArticlePeerJ2018
Abstract, emotional and concrete concepts and the activation of mouth-hand effectors.
Article in PeerJ, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 53 citations in OpenAlex.
- Specificity effect in concrete/abstract semantic categorization task.Cognitive processing · 2026Article
- Is love an abstract concept? A view of concepts from an interaction-based perspective.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2023Review
- Is motor inhibition involved in the processing of sentential negation? An assessment via the Stop-Signal Task.Psychological research · 2023Article
- Abstractness emerges progressively over the second year of life.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Words have a weight: language as a source of inner grounding and flexibility in abstract concepts.Psychological research · 2022Article
- Is justice grounded? How expertise shapes conceptual representation of institutional concepts.Psychological research · 2022Article
- Abstract concepts: external influences, internal constraints, and methodological issues.Psychological research · 2022Review
- Abstract and concrete concepts in conversation.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Are the concepts of emotion special? A comparison between basic-emotion, secondary-emotion, abstract, and concrete words.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- From Affordances to Abstract Words: The Flexibility of Sensorimotor Grounding.Brain sciences · 2021Review
- Article
- A Future of Words: Language and the Challenge of Abstract Concepts.Journal of cognition · 2020Article
- Preferential activation for emotional Western classical music versus emotional environmental sounds in motor, interoceptive, and language brain areas.Brain and cognition · 2019Article
- Sociality to Reach Objects and to Catch Meaning.Frontiers in psychology · 2019Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
According to embodied and grounded theories, concepts are grounded in sensorimotor systems. The majority of evidence supporting these views concerns concepts referring to objects or actions, while evidence on abstract concepts is more scarce. Explaining how abstract concepts such as "freedom" are represented would thus be pivotal for grounded theories. According to some recent proposals, abstract concepts are grounded in both sensorimotor and linguistic experience, thus they activate the mouth motor system more than concrete concepts. Two experiments are reported, aimed at verifying whether abstract, concrete and emotional words activate the mouth and the hand effectors. In both experiments participants performed first a lexical decision, then a recognition task. In Experiment 1 participants responded by pressing a button either with the mouth or with the hand, in Experiment 2 responses were given with the foot, while a button held either in the mouth or in the hand was used to respond to catch-trials. Abstract words were slower to process in both tasks (concreteness effect). Across the tasks and experiments, emotional concepts had instead a fluctuating pattern, different from those of both concrete and abstract concepts, suggesting that they cannot be considered as a subset of abstract concepts. The interaction between type of concept (abstract, concrete and emotional) and effector (mouth, hand) was not significant in the lexical decision task, likely because it emerged only with tasks implying a deeper processing level. It reached significance, instead, in the recognition tasks. In both experiments abstract concepts were facilitated in the mouth condition compared to the hand condition, supporting our main prediction. Emotional concepts instead had a more variable pattern. Overall, our findings indicate that various kinds of concepts differently activate the mouth and hand effectors, but they also suggest that concepts activate effectors in a flexible and task-dependent way.
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.