ArticleFrontiers in psychology2024
Conventionality matters in Chinese metaphor but not simile comprehension: evidence from event-related potentials.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Bilingualism Effects in Metaphor and Simile Comprehension and Production in Children With Autism Spectrum Disorder.Autism research : official journal of the International Society for Autism Research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Metaphor and simile, two prevalent forms of figurative language widely employed in daily communication, serve as significant research subjects in linguistics. The Career of Metaphor Theory in cognitive linguistics posits that as conventionality increases, the cognitive mechanisms of metaphor comprehension shift from "comparison" to "categorization." In line with this notion, prior electrophysiological investigations have revealed that novel metaphors elicit a stronger N400 brain response compared to conventional metaphors. However, the observed N400 difference between conventional and novel metaphors may merely stem from the familiarity contrast between them, as conventional metaphors are typically more familiar than novel ones. To address this dichotomy, the present study not only compared the N400 responses between conventional and novel metaphors but also between conventional and novel similes. While conventional and novel similes differ in familiarity, similar to conventional and novel metaphors, both are processed via "comparison" mechanisms. The results revealed that novel metaphors elicited larger N400 amplitudes compared to conventional metaphors, aligning with previous findings. In contrast, no significant N400 differences were observed between conventional and novel similes, suggesting that familiarity disparity is unlikely to account for N400 distinctions. Our findings imply that conventional and novel metaphors undergo distinct cognitive processing mechanisms ("comparison" versus "categorization"), thereby providing further empirical validation for the Career of Metaphor Theory.
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.