Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40032746›Full record

ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2025

Contrasting the organization of concrete and abstract word meanings.

Veronica Diveica, Emiko J Muraki, Richard J Binney, Penny M Pexman

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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.

Veronica DiveicaMontreal Neurological Institute, Mcgill University, Montreal, Canada. veronica.diveica@mcgill.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5696-8200
Emiko J MurakiDepartment of Psychology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9534-6538
Richard J BinneyDepartment of Psychology, Bangor University, Gwynedd, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4474-2922
Penny M PexmanDepartment of Psychology, Western University, London, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7130-0973

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Concepts have traditionally been categorized as either concrete (e.g., ROSE) or abstract (e.g., ROMANCE) based on whether they have a direct connection to external sensory experience or not. However, there is growing consensus that these conceptual categories differ in their reliance on various additional sources of semantic information, such as motor, affective, social, and linguistic experiences, and this is reflected in systematic differences in the semantic properties that typically contribute to their informational content. However, it remains unclear whether concrete and abstract concepts also differ in how their constituent semantic properties relate to one another. To explore this, we compared the organization of 15 semantic dimensions underlying concrete and abstract concept knowledge using data-driven network analyses. We found striking differences in both (1) the centrality of conceptual properties and (2) their pairwise partial correlations. Distinct sensorimotor dimensions emerged as pivotal in organizing each concept type: haptic information for concrete concepts, and interoception and mouth action for abstract concepts. Social content was higher in abstract concepts. However, it played a more central role in structuring concrete meanings, suggesting distinct contributions of social experience to each concept type. Age of acquisition was related exclusively to dimensions quantifying sensorimotor and affective experiences, with sensorimotor properties supporting the acquisition of concrete concepts and affective properties contributing more to the acquisition of abstract concepts. Overall, our findings offer novel insights into the interplay between the diverse sources of semantic information proposed by multiple representation theories in shaping both abstract and concrete concept knowledge.

Indexed as

Concept FormationPsycholinguisticsSemanticsAdultFemaleHumansMaleYoung AdultAbstract conceptsConcretenessEmbodied cognitionLexical semantics

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.