Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33556798›Full record

ArticleActa psychologica2021

Exocentric coding of the mapping between valence and regions of space: Implications for embodied cognition.

Adele M Pacini, Philip J Barnard

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Acta psychologica, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Adele M PaciniThe Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Electronic address: a.pacini@open.ac.uk.
Philip J BarnardMRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, 15 Chaucer Road, Cambridge, CB2 7EF, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Electronic address: Phil.barnard@mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Converging evidence has established that positive concepts presented on a computer screen are associated with upper regions of space, and negative concepts with a lower region of space. One explanation for this is that understanding positive or negative concepts requires the re-experiencing of direction, whereby "happy is up" and "sad is down." However, it is unclear how the regions of space are encoded in these paradigms, space can be encoded in relation to oneself (egocentrically) or in object centred coordinates that are independent of oneself (exocentrically). The current study compares exocentric and egocentric coding of space, using a variation of the Meier and Robinson (2004) paradigm. Participants were asked to evaluate valenced concepts in either the upper or lower half of the screen. Spatial primes were used such that the concepts were preceded by either an upwards or a downwards eye movement. Exocentric coding of space in this paradigm was the computer screen, whilst egocentric coding was the eye movement used to access the top or bottom of the screen. It was proposed that egocentric coding of space, being coded in the body, provides evidence of a stronger relationship between the original bodily state of 'up' or 'down' and subsequent simulation. However, significant results supported an exocentric coding of space, with faster responses to positive concepts in the upper half of the screen, and to negative concepts in the lower half, irrespective of the direction of the eye movement preceding it. The implications of this for embodied cognition are discussed.

Indexed as

CognitionEye MovementsHumansSpace PerceptionEgocentricEmbodied cognitionExocentricSpatial encoding

Identifiers

PMID33556798
PMCPMC7910226

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.