ArticlePsychological research2021
Perspective in the conceptualization of categories.
Article in Psychological research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- The space of words: semantic integration of space-related words in noun sensorimotor processing.Psychological research · 2026Article
- Interoceptive grounding of conceptual knowledge: new insight from an interoceptive-exteroceptive categorization task of concepts.Psychological research · 2026Article
- Thinking climate change through the lens of abstractness: a multi-task and multi-setting investigation into generational differences in the conceptualization of ecology.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2025Article
- Issues in Grounded Cognition and How to Solve Them - the Minimalist Account.Journal of cognition · 2025Article
- Processing L2 action verbs shares the same mechanisms for processing L1 items: evidence from a combined behavioral and MEG study.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Activity in Occipito-Temporal Cortex Is Involved in Tool-Use Planning and Contributes to Tool-Related Semantic Neural Representations.Neurobiology of language (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2024Article
- Differences and similarities in the conceptualization of COVID-19 and other diseases in the first Italian lockdown.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Manipulating objects and telling words: a study on concrete and abstract words acquisition.Frontiers in psychology · 2011Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The ability to differently perceive and represent entities depending on their perspective is crucial for humans. We report five experiments that investigate how the different perspectives adopted while experiencing entities are reflected in conceptualizations (towards vs. away, near vs. far, beside vs. above, inside vs. outside and vision vs. audition vs. touch). Different groups of participants generated object properties while imagining the same scenario from different perspectives (e.g. entities coming toward them/going away from them while on a highway overpass). If conceptualizations have perspectives, then participants should produce features from a perspective entrenched in memory that reflects typical interactions with objects, independently of their assigned perspective (entrenched perspective). In addition, the perspective adopted in a given experiment should influence the properties generated (situated perspective). Results across the experiments indicate that conceptualizations contain both entrenched and situational perspectives. While entrenched perspectives emerge from canonical actions typically performed with objects, locations and entities, situational perspectives reflect online adaptations to current task contexts. The implications of the interplay between entrenched and situational perspectives for grounded cognition are discussed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31773254What 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.