Display options
Cite
Diefenbach C, Rieger M, Massen C, et al. Action-sentence compatibility: the role of action effects and timing. Front Psychol. 2013;4:272doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00272.
Diefenbach, C., Rieger, M., Massen, C., & Prinz, W. (2013). Action-sentence compatibility: the role of action effects and timing. Frontiers in psychology, 4272. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00272
Diefenbach, Christiane, et al. "Action-sentence compatibility: the role of action effects and timing." Frontiers in psychology vol. 4 (2013): 272. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00272
Diefenbach C, Rieger M, Massen C, Prinz W. Action-sentence compatibility: the role of action effects and timing. Front Psychol. 2013 May 21;4:272. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00272. eCollection 2013. PMID: 23734134; PMCID: PMC3659315.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Front Psychol. 2013 May 21;4:272. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00272. eCollection 2013.

Action-sentence compatibility: the role of action effects and timing.

Frontiers in psychology

Christiane Diefenbach, Martina Rieger, Cristina Massen, Wolfgang Prinz

Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences Leipzig, Germany ; Graduate Program: Function of Attention in Cognition, University of Leipzig Leipzig, Germany.

PMID: 23734134 PMCID: PMC3659315 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00272

Abstract

Research on embodied approaches to language comprehension suggests that we understand linguistic descriptions of actions by mentally simulating these actions. Evidence is provided by the action-sentence compatibility effect (ACE) which shows that sensibility judgments for sentences are faster when the direction of the described action matches the response direction. In two experiments, we investigated whether the ACE relies on actions or on intended action effects. Participants gave sensibility judgments of auditorily presented sentences by producing an action effect on a screen at a location near the body or far from the body. These action effects were achieved by pressing a response button that was located in either the same spatial direction as the action effect, or in the opposite direction. We used a go/no-go task in which the direction of the to-be-produced action effect was either cued at the onset of each sentence (Experiment 1) or at different points in time before and after sentence onset (Experiment 2). Overall, results showed a relationship between the direction of the described action and the direction of the action effect. Furthermore, Experiment 2 indicated that depending on the timing between cue presentation and sentence onset, participants responded either faster when the direction of the described action matched the direction of the action effect (positive ACE), or slower (negative ACE). These results provide evidence that the comprehension of action sentences involves the activation of representations of action effects. Concurrently activated representations in sentence comprehension and action planning can lead to both priming and interference, which is discussed in the context of the theory of event coding.

Keywords: action simulation; action-sentence compatibility; embodiment; language comprehension; motor simulation

References

  1. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2001 Feb;27(1):229-40 - PubMed
  2. Cogn Sci. 2006 Nov 12;30(6):1097-112 - PubMed
  3. Curr Biol. 2008 Apr 8;18(7):R290-1 - PubMed
  4. Behav Brain Sci. 2001 Oct;24(5):849-78; discussion 878-937 - PubMed
  5. J Cogn Neurosci. 2005 Feb;17(2):273-81 - PubMed
  6. PLoS One. 2012;7(2):e31204 - PubMed
  7. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2008 May;137(2):262-81 - PubMed
  8. Trends Cogn Sci. 2003 May;7(5):219-224 - PubMed
  9. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1997 Jun;23(3):861-72 - PubMed
  10. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2006 Jun;32(3):633-43 - PubMed
  11. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2006 Feb;135(1):1-11 - PubMed
  12. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2008 Jun;61(6):896-904 - PubMed
  13. J Cogn Neurosci. 2006 Oct;18(10):1607-15 - PubMed
  14. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2009 May;138(2):218-35 - PubMed
  15. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2007 Oct;126(2):138-53 - PubMed
  16. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2007 Nov;33(6):1118-30 - PubMed
  17. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2008 Sep;61(9):1298-306 - PubMed
  18. Psychol Sci. 2005 Jan;16(1):6-10 - PubMed
  19. Psychon Bull Rev. 2002 Sep;9(3):558-65 - PubMed
  20. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2008 Jun;61(6):905-19 - PubMed
  21. Cortex. 2012 Jul;48(7):905-22 - PubMed
  22. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 2005 Aug;24(3):355-63 - PubMed
  23. Psychol Rev. 1992 Apr;99(2):195-231 - PubMed
  24. Behav Brain Sci. 1999 Aug;22(4):577-609; discussion 610-60 - PubMed
  25. Brain Lang. 2004 May;89(2):385-92 - PubMed
  26. Neuroreport. 1998 Jul 13;9(10):2195-200 - PubMed
  27. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2005 Jul;6(7):576-82 - PubMed
  28. Eur J Neurosci. 2005 Feb;21(3):793-7 - PubMed
  29. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2008 Jun;61(6):883-95 - PubMed
  30. J Physiol Paris. 2008 Jan-May;102(1-3):130-6 - PubMed

Publication Types