Downloads & Free Reading Options - Results

According to embodied cognition theories, people simulate sensorimotor experiences to understand the meaning of language they are comprehending. Previous studies showed that picture recognition is better when the depicted properties of a pictured object match the properties implied by a preceding sentence. For instance, picture recognition is facilitated when the shape (Zwaan et al., 2002), orientation (Stanfield & Zwaan, 2001), or size (Koning et al., 2016) of a pictured object match the way the object was described in a preceding sentence (compared to cases where depicted and implied features do not match). This is referred to as a match effect. To build a sensorimotor simulation of the meaning conveyed by the sentence, one must have the ability to employ visual imagery. However, people greatly differ in their visual imagery vividness, varying from aphants—those who report not having any internal visual imagery to hyperphants—those with photorealistic visual imagery (Milton et al., 2021). In the proposed study, we test whether the self-reported individual differences in visual imagery vividness predict the magnitude of the sentence-picture verification match effect. Specifically, we expect the match effect to increase as a function of individual visual imagery vividness. We will administer a variant of the sentence-picture verification task described by Zwaan et al. (2002) as well as subjective imagery instruments to test this hypothesis.

Evidence suggests that the motor and language systems are functionally interwoven. Several studies showed that processing action language leads to a prompt, somatotopic activation in the motor system. Similarly, motor training improves action-verb recognition. In this vein, it is hypothesized that changes in one system can lead to changes in the other, and improvements in one can lead to improvements in the other. Behavioral studies have shown that sensorimotor experience changes the processing of action language related to one’s sensorimotor expertise. In line with such results, several studies suggest that motor imagery recruits the motor cortex in a somatotopic manner, in a similar pattern to the one elicited during actual motor execution. Consequently, we can expect that motor imagery manipulation could induce a language performance modification in a similar manner as it is observed during motor manipulation. To test whether motor imagery could induce modulation in language processing, we designed a training protocol for healthy adults. We propose two different training programs: a kinesthetic motor imagery (KMI) training protocol (experimental condition) and a static visual imagery (SVI) training (control condition). After completing the training program, participants will be instructed to perform two language tasks: a classical semantic categorization task (visual presentation of single words) and a sentence-picture matching task (auditory presentation of sentences). Specifically, for the sentence-picture matching task, we manipulated the difficulty and ecology of the task. Indeed, the sentences will be presented in two different conditions: a simple condition (noise-free, easy condition) and a cocktail-party condition (difficult condition). This will allow us to evaluate the potential implication of the motor imagery in line with the difficulty of the task.

Evidence suggests that the motor and language systems are functionally interwoven. Several studies showed that processing action language leads to a prompt, somatotopic activation in the motor system. Similarly, motor training improves action-verb recognition. In this vein, it is hypothesized that changes in one system can lead to changes in the other, and improvements in one can lead to improvements in the other. Behavioral studies have shown that sensorimotor experience changes the processing of action language related to one’s sensorimotor expertise. In line with such results, several studies suggest that motor imagery recruits the motor cortex in a somatotopic manner, in a similar pattern to the one elicited during actual motor execution. Consequently, we can expect that motor imagery manipulation could induce a language performance modification in a similar manner as it is observed during motor manipulation. To test whether motor imagery could induce modulation in language processing, we designed a training protocol for healthy adults. We propose two different training programs: a kinesthetic motor imagery (KMI) training protocol (experimental condition) and a static visual imagery (SVI) training (control condition). After completing the training program, participants will be instructed to perform two language tasks: a classical semantic categorization task (visual presentation of single words) and a sentence-picture matching task (auditory presentation of sentences). Specifically, for the sentence-picture matching task, we manipulated the difficulty and ecology of the task. Indeed, the sentences will be presented in two different conditions: a simple condition (noise-free, easy condition) and a cocktail-party condition (difficult condition). This will allow us to evaluate the potential implication of the motor imagery in line with the difficulty of the task.

Evidence suggests that the motor and language systems are functionally interwoven. Several studies showed that processing action language leads to a prompt, somatotopic activation in the motor system. Similarly, motor training improves action-verb recognition. In this vein, it is hypothesized that changes in one system can lead to changes in the other, and improvements in one can lead to improvements in the other. Behavioral studies have shown that sensorimotor experience changes the processing of action language related to one’s sensorimotor expertise. In line with such results, several studies suggest that motor imagery recruits the motor cortex in a somatotopic manner, in a similar pattern to the one elicited during actual motor execution. Consequently, we can expect that motor imagery manipulation could induce a language performance modification in a similar manner as it is observed during motor manipulation. To test whether motor imagery could induce modulation in language processing, we designed a training protocol for healthy adults. We propose two different training programs: a kinesthetic motor imagery (KMI) training protocol (experimental condition) and a static visual imagery (SVI) training (control condition). After completing the training program, participants will be instructed to perform two language tasks: a classical semantic categorization task (visual presentation of single words) and a sentence-picture matching task (auditory presentation of sentences). Specifically, for the sentence-picture matching task, we manipulated the difficulty and ecology of the task. Indeed, the sentences will be presented in two different conditions: a simple condition (noise-free, easy condition) and a cocktail-party condition (difficult condition). This will allow us to evaluate the potential implication of the motor imagery in line with the difficulty of the task.

Evidence suggests that the motor and language systems are functionally interwoven. Several studies showed that processing action language leads to a prompt, somatotopic activation in the motor system. Similarly, motor training improves action-verb recognition. In this vein, it is hypothesized that changes in one system can lead to changes in the other, and improvements in one can lead to improvements in the other. Behavioral studies have shown that sensorimotor experience changes the processing of action language related to one’s sensorimotor expertise. In line with such results, several studies suggest that motor imagery recruits the motor cortex in a somatotopic manner, in a similar pattern to the one elicited during actual motor execution. Consequently, we can expect that motor imagery manipulation could induce a language performance modification in a similar manner as it is observed during motor manipulation. To test whether motor imagery could induce modulation in language processing, we designed a training protocol for healthy adults. We propose two different training programs: a kinesthetic motor imagery (KMI) training protocol (experimental condition) and a static visual imagery (SVI) training (control condition). After completing the training program, participants will be instructed to perform two language tasks: a classical semantic categorization task (visual presentation of single words) and a sentence-picture matching task (auditory presentation of sentences). Specifically, for the sentence-picture matching task, we manipulated the difficulty and ecology of the task. Indeed, the sentences will be presented in two different conditions: a simple condition (noise-free, easy condition) and a cocktail-party condition (difficult condition). This will allow us to evaluate the potential implication of the motor imagery in line with the difficulty of the task.

In this project, the relationship between different aspects of wine imagery (i.e., color, smell, taste, and mouthfeel) and expert descriptions for these imagined wines, is investigated.

In this project, the relationship between different aspects of wine imagery (i.e., color, smell, taste, and mouthfeel) and expert descriptions for these imagined wines, is investigated.

In this project, the relationship between different aspects of wine imagery (i.e., color, smell, taste, and mouthfeel) and expert descriptions for these imagined wines, is investigated.

In this project, the relationship between different aspects of wine imagery (i.e., color, smell, taste, and mouthfeel) and expert descriptions for these imagined wines, is investigated.

In this project, the relationship between different aspects of wine imagery (i.e., color, smell, taste, and mouthfeel) and expert descriptions for these imagined wines, is investigated.

In this project, the relationship between different aspects of wine imagery (i.e., color, smell, taste, and mouthfeel) and expert descriptions for these imagined wines, is investigated.

381 p. : 23 cm

381 p. : 23 cm

John Updike is considered as one of the greatest American fiction writers of his generation. He is a seriously committed craftsman of the exacting shorter form. Updike has exhibited a sustained mastery of the short story throughout his career. While consistently advancing the level of his craft, he has contributed actively to the genre’s revitalization through formal experimentation and stylistic excellence. Along with Updike, very few authors of short fiction have featured in Best American short stories and Prize stories: The O. Henry awards . Updike’s stories have been featured a total of 22 times in the two major yearly anthologies,10 times in Best American Short Stories a nd 12 times in Prize stories: The O.Henry  awards.

John Updike is considered as one of the greatest American fiction writers of his generation. He is a seriously committed craftsman of the exacting shorter form. Updike has exhibited a sustained mastery of the short story throughout his career. While consistently advancing the level of his craft, he has contributed actively to the genre’s revitalization through formal experimentation and stylistic excellence. Along with Updike, very few authors of short fiction have featured in Best American short stories and Prize stories: The O. Henry awards . Updike’s stories have been featured a total of 22 times in the two major yearly anthologies,10 times in Best American Short Stories a nd 12 times in Prize stories: The O.Henry  awards.