Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42789140›Full record

ArticleCognitive processing2026

Propositional and imagistic incongruity: a dual-route cognitive account of humor processing.

Omid Khatin-Zadeh, Hassan Banaruee

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Cognitive processing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Omid Khatin-ZadehSchool of Foreign Languages, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.
Hassan BanarueeDepartment of Educational Psychology, University of Education Weingarten, Weingarten, Germany. hassan.banaruee@ph-weingarten.de.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8004-7604

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper develops a theoretical account of humor processing in terms of two interacting routes of cognitive processing. Building on the distinction between propositional and imagistic modes of language comprehension, it argues that humorous incongruity may arise through conceptual, perceptual, or cross-representational discrepancies. The propositional route involves relatively abstract and amodal representations, in which humor emerges from a mismatch between conceptual expectations and asserted or implied meanings. The imagistic route involves mental imagery, perceptual simulation, and sensorimotor representation, in which humor emerges from discrepancies between expected and activated perceptual or multimodal representations. In addition, the paper proposes that humorous effects may arise through between-route incongruity, where propositional and imagistic representations conflict, as in cases where verbal content and gesture, visual imagery, or embodied cues convey incompatible meanings. This dual-route account is not intended to replace existing theories of humor, but to specify a processing-level distinction that clarifies how incongruity is represented and resolved across verbal, visual, and multimodal forms of humor. By linking humor processing to conceptual processing, mental imagery, and embodied cognition, the account provides a framework for explaining why formally similar humorous expressions may differ in cognitive demands, perceptual salience, and affective impact. The paper concludes by outlining implications for future behavioral, cognitive, and multimodal research on humor processing.

Indexed as

Dual-route account of humorHumorImagistic incongruityIncongruity resolutionPropositional incongruity

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.