ArticleBrain sciences2024
Embodied Semantics: Early Simultaneous Motor Grounding in First and Second Languages.
Article in Brain sciences, 2024. 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.
- Inhibitory reversal of morpheme-mediated semantic priming in L2 Chinese: embodiment conflicts in conventional action metaphor processing.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Dynamics of language grounding: on the time course, durability, adaptability, and vulnerability of embodied effects.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesAlthough the embodiment of action-related language is well-established in the mother tongue (L1), less is known about the embodiment of a second language (L2) acquired later in life through formal instruction. We used the high temporal resolution of ERPs and topographic ERP analyses to compare embodiment in L1 and L2 and to investigate whether L1 and L2 are embodied with different strengths at different stages of linguistic processing.
methodsSubjects were presented with action-related and non-action-related verbs in a silent reading task. Subjects were late French-German and German-French bilinguals, respectively, and we could therefore collapse across languages to avoid common confounding between language (French and German) and order of acquisition (L1, L2).
resultsWe could show distinct effects of embodiment and language. Embodiment affected only the sensory and lexical stages of processing with increased strength and power of the N1 component for motor vs. non-motor verbs, and language affected the lexical and semantic stages of processing with stronger P2/N400 components for L2 than for L1. Non-motor verbs elicited a stronger P1 component in L2.
conclusionsOur results suggest that processing words in L2 requires more effortful processing. Importantly, L1 and L2 are not embodied differently, and embodiment affects early and similar stages of processing in L1 and L2, possibly integrating other process of action-language interaction.
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.