ArticleScientific reports2022
Abstract and concrete concepts in conversation.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed.
- Processing abstract concepts through interaction: effects on social recognition.Cognitive processing · 2026Article
- The impact of social interaction on abstract concepts.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Article
- Specificity effect in concrete/abstract semantic categorization task.Cognitive processing · 2026Article
- Abstract word dropout and cross-speaker misalignment of word concreteness are features of conversation in aging.Cortex; a journal devoted to the study of the nervous system and behavior · 2025Article
- Digital connection, real bonding: Brief online chats boost interpersonal closeness regardless of the conversational topic.Heliyon · 2025Article
- Abstractness and social interaction through a new lens: the potentialities of hyperscanning in naturalistic settings.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2025Article
- Unstable metaphors, uncertain minds: how metaphors shape judgments and opinions.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Impact of pacifier use and parenting characteristics on toddlers' vocabulary development.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Abstract concepts and expertise: the case of institutional concepts.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Abstract concepts and simulated competition.Psychological research · 2024Article
- Promoting leisure functions through setting creative linguistic landscapes in recreational zones.PloS one · 2024Article
- The Wise Mind Balances the Abstract and the Concrete.Open mind : discoveries in cognitive science · 2024Article
- Semantic Bimodal Presentation Differentially Slows Working Memory Retrieval.Brain sciences · 2023Article
- Concepts, abstractness and inner speech.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2023Review
- Consensus Paper: Current Perspectives on Abstract Concepts and Future Research Directions.Journal of cognition · 2023Article
- Distributed embodiment of metaphoricalFrontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- Abstract Concepts, Social Interaction, and Beliefs.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- From Affordances to Abstract Words: The Flexibility of Sensorimotor Grounding.Brain sciences · 2021Review
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
Concepts allow us to make sense of the world. Most evidence on their acquisition and representation comes from studies of single decontextualized words and focuses on the opposition between concrete and abstract concepts (e.g., "bottle" vs. "truth"). A significant step forward in research on concepts consists in investigating them in online interaction during their use. Our study examines linguistic exchanges analyzing the differences between sub-kinds of concepts. Participants were submitted to an online task in which they had to simulate a conversational exchange by responding to sentences involving sub-kinds of concrete (tools, animals, food) and abstract concepts (PS, philosophical-spiritual; EMSS, emotional-social, PSTQ, physical-spatio-temporal-quantitative). We found differences in content: foods evoked interoception; tools and animals elicited materials, spatial, auditive features, confirming their sensorimotor grounding. PS and EMSS yielded inner experiences (e.g., emotions, cognitive states, introspections) and opposed PSTQ, tied to visual properties and concrete agency. More crucially, the various concepts elicited different interactional dynamics: more abstract concepts generated higher uncertainty and more interactive exchanges than concrete ones. Investigating concepts in situated interactions opens new possibilities for studying conceptual knowledge and its pragmatic and social aspects.
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.