Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36301981›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Embodied time: Effect of reading expertise on the spatial representation of past and future.

Camille L Grasso, Johannes C Ziegler, Jennifer T Coull, Marie Montant

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
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

4 authors.

Camille L GrassoCNRS, Laboratoire de Psychologie Cognitive (UMR 7290), Aix-Marseille Université, Marseille, France.ORCID 0000-0002-7549-7395
Johannes C ZieglerCNRS, Laboratoire de Psychologie Cognitive (UMR 7290), Aix-Marseille Université, Marseille, France.
Jennifer T CoullCNRS, Laboratoire de Neurosciences Cognitive (UMR 7291), Aix-Marseille Université, Marseille, France.
Marie MontantCNRS, Laboratoire de Psychologie Cognitive (UMR 7290), Aix-Marseille Université, Marseille, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

How do people grasp the abstract concept of time? It has been argued that abstract concepts, such as future and past, are grounded in sensorimotor experience. When responses to words that refer to the past or the future are either spatially compatible or incompatible with a left-to-right timeline, a space-time congruency effect is observed. In the present study, we investigated whether reading expertise determines the strength of the space-time congruency effect, which would suggest that learning to read and write drives the effect. Using a temporal categorization task, we compared two types of space-time congruency effects, one where spatial incongruency was generated by the location of the stimuli on the screen and one where it was generated by the location of the responses on the keyboard. While the first type of incongruency was visuo-spatial only, the second involved the motor system. Results showed stronger space-time congruency effects for the second type of incongruency (i.e., when the motor system was involved) than for the first type (visuo-spatial). Crucially, reading expertise, as measured by a standardized reading test, predicted the size of the space-time congruency effects. Altogether, these results reinforce the claim that the spatial representation of time is partially mediated by the motor system and partially grounded in spatially-directed movement, such as reading or writing.

Indexed as

ReadingTime PerceptionHumansReaction TimeSpace PerceptionTime

Identifiers

PMID36301981
PMCPMC9612582

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.