ArticleCognitive processing2020
Emoji-based semantic representations for abstract and concrete concepts.
Article in Cognitive processing, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Multidimensional Lexicon of Emojis: A New Tool to Assess the Emotional Content of Emojis.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- Eliciting semantic properties: methods and applications.Cognitive processing · 2020Article
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
An increasingly large body of converging evidence supports the idea that the semantic system is distributed across brain areas and that the information encoded therein is multimodal. Within this framework, feature norms are typically used to operationalize the various parts of meaning that contribute to define the distributed nature of conceptual representations. However, such features are typically collected as verbal strings, elicited from participants in experimental settings. If the semantic system is not only distributed (across features) but also multimodal, a cognitively sound theory of semantic representations should take into account different modalities in which feature-based representations are generated, because not all the relevant semantic information may be easily verbalized into classic feature norms, and different types of concepts (e.g., abstract vs. concrete concepts) may consist of different configurations of non-verbal features. In this paper we acknowledge the multimodal nature of conceptual representations and we propose a novel way of collecting non-verbal semantic features. In a crowdsourcing task we asked participants to use emoji to provide semantic representations for a sample of 300 English nouns referring to abstract and concrete concepts, which account for (machine readable) visual features. In a formal content analysis with multiple annotators we then classified the cognitive strategies used by the participants to represent conceptual content through emoji. The main results of our analyses show that abstract (vs. concrete) concepts are characterized by representations that: 1. consist of a larger number of emoji; 2. include more face emoji (expressing emotions); 3. are less stable and less shared among users; 4. use representation strategies based on figurative operations (e.g., metaphors) and strategies that exploit linguistic information (e.g. rebus); 5. correlate less well with the semantic representations emerging from classic features listed through verbal strings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32383010What 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.