ArticleJournal of psycholinguistic research2026
Grasp Motor Representations Facilitate Conceptual Preparation in Speech Production.
Article in Journal of psycholinguistic research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Understanding the cognitive mechanisms of spoken language production is essential for explaining human communication. Grounded in embodied cognition theory, this study investigates how object-directed sensorimotor features shape the conceptual preparation stage underlying concept selection. In Experiment 1, participants selected concepts from two dimensions: graspability (graspable vs. non-graspable) and semantic category (artificial vs. natural). This was done under three levels of response competition. Results showed a robust processing advantage for graspable objects over non-graspable ones across all tasks. More importantly, a systematic and pervasive advantage for artificial objects over natural ones was also found specifically in the control and low-choice task conditions. Experiment 2, which also employed the concept selection paradigm, examined graspable objects only, distinguishing between precision and power grips. Results revealed that precision-grip objects were selected faster than power-grip objects, an advantage that was most pronounced in the low-choice condition. Notably, this precision motor facilitation was reliable for both artificial and natural objects. Moreover, the advantage for artificial objects over natural objects remained significant and was independent of the grip-type effect. These findings demonstrate that motor representations are automatically and robustly activated during conceptual preparation. Their facilitatory influence is characterized by a consistent categorical advantage for artifacts and an additive benefit from fine-grained motor parameters, with the expression of these effects being dynamically calibrated, but not abolished, by task-imposed cognitive demands. This study underscores the hierarchical and context-sensitive interplay between sensorimotor and semantic systems in concept selection during spoken language production.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42371277What 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.