ArticleBehavior research methods2026
Contextualized sensorimotor norms: Multi-dimensional measures of sensorimotor strength for ambiguous English words, in context.
Article in Behavior research methods, 2026. 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.
- Words and Worlds Both: Dynamic Effects of Distributional and Sensorimotor Information in Semantic Processing.Open mind : discoveries in cognitive science · 2025Article
- Can large language models help augment English psycholinguistic datasets?Behavior research methods · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Embodied theories of language emphasize the role of sensorimotor experience in linguistic knowledge. Central to testing these theories is the creation of large datasets of linguistic norms, which contain judgments about a word's sensorimotor associations and can be used to predict human behavioral or brain data - sometimes in contrast to competing variables, such as those derived from distributional language models. Yet many of these datasets contain judgments about words in isolation, despite the fact that most words are ambiguous, making it difficult to determine which meaning of a word is characterized by its rating (e.g., "wooden table" vs. "data table"). In the current work, we introduce a new lexical resource (directly inspired by the Lancaster sensorimotor for 112 English words, each rated in four different contexts (448 sentences total). We demonstrate: first, that these ratings encode overlapping but distinct information from the Lancaster sensorimotor norms; second, that decontextualized ratings likely reflect the more dominant meaning of ambiguous words; third, that homonyms have more distinct sensorimotor profiles than polysemes; fourth, that the contextualized sensorimotor distance between two uses of an ambiguous word predicts human judgments about semantic relatedness; and fifth, that ratings derived from GPT-4 align reasonably well with human judgments. We conclude by suggesting that contextualized ratings like these can be used both to inform competing theories of semantic representations and also to evaluate or "probe" the ability of LMs to recover sensorimotor information.
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.