Villani Caterina, Lugli Luisa, Liuzza Marco Tullio, Nicoletti Roberto, Borghi Anna M
Department of Philosophy and Communication, University of Bologna, via Azzo Gardino, 23, Bologna 40122, Italy.
Department of Medical and Surgery Sciences, University of Catanzaro, Viale Europa (Loc. Germaneto), Catanzaro 88100, Italy.
J Mem Lang. 2021 Feb;116:104173. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2020.104173. Epub 2020 Sep 16.
Recent theories propose that abstract concepts, compared to concrete ones, might activate to a larger extent interoceptive, social and linguistic experiences. At the same time, recent research has underlined the importance of investigating how different sub-kinds of abstract concepts are represented. We report a pre-registered experiment, preceded by a pilot study, in which we asked participants to evaluate the difficulty of 3 kinds of concrete concepts (natural objects, tools, and food concepts) and abstract concepts (Philosophical and Spiritual concepts, PS, Physical Space Time and Quantity concepts, PSTQ, and Emotional, Mental State and Social concepts, EMSS). While rating the words, participants were assigned to different conditions designed to interfere with conceptual processing: they were required to squeeze a ball (hand motor system activation), to chew gum (mouth motor system activation), to self-estimate their heartbeats (interoception), and to perform a motor articulatory task (inner speech involvement). In a control condition they simply rated the difficulty of words. A possible interference should result in the increase of the difficulty ratings. Bayesian analyses reveal that, compared to concrete ones, abstract concepts are more grounded in interoceptive experience and concrete concepts less in linguistic experience (mouth motor system involvement), and that the experience on which different kinds of abstract and concrete concepts differs widely. For example, within abstract concepts interoception plays a major role for EMSS and PS concepts, while the ball squeezing condition interferes more for PSTQ concepts, confirming that PSTQ are the most concrete among abstract concepts, and tap into sensorimotor manual experience. Implications of the results for current theories of conceptual representation are discussed.
近期理论提出,与具体概念相比,抽象概念可能在更大程度上激活内感受、社会和语言体验。与此同时,近期研究强调了探究不同子类抽象概念如何被表征的重要性。我们报告了一项在预实验研究之后进行的预先注册实验,在该实验中,我们要求参与者评估3种具体概念(自然物体、工具和食物概念)以及抽象概念(哲学和精神概念,PS;物理时空和数量概念,PSTQ;以及情感、心理状态和社会概念,EMSS)的难度。在对单词进行评分时,参与者被分配到不同条件下,这些条件旨在干扰概念加工:他们被要求挤压一个球(手部运动系统激活)、咀嚼口香糖(口腔运动系统激活)、自我估计心跳(内感受)以及执行一项运动发音任务(内部言语参与)。在控制条件下,他们只需对单词的难度进行评分。可能的干扰应会导致难度评分增加。贝叶斯分析表明,与具体概念相比,抽象概念更多地基于内感受体验,而具体概念较少基于语言体验(口腔运动系统参与),并且不同种类的抽象概念和具体概念所基于的体验差异很大。例如,在抽象概念中,内感受对EMSS和PS概念起主要作用,而挤压球的条件对PSTQ概念的干扰更大,这证实了PSTQ是抽象概念中最具体的,并且涉及感觉运动手动体验。我们讨论了这些结果对当前概念表征理论的启示。