Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Look but don't touch
View graph of relations

Look but don't touch: tactile disadvantage in processing modality-specific words

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

Look but don't touch : tactile disadvantage in processing modality-specific words. / Connell, Louise; Lynott, Dermot.

In: Cognition, Vol. 115, No. 1, 04.2010, p. 1-9.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Author

Bibtex

@article{8b38acc4c800422dac6ca70e022db18b,
title = "Look but don't touch: tactile disadvantage in processing modality-specific words",
abstract = "Recent neuroimaging research has shown that perceptual and conceptual processing share a common, modality-specific neural substrate, while work on modality switching costs suggests that they share some of the same attentional mechanisms. In three experiments, we employed a modality detection task that displayed modality-specific object properties (e.g., unimodal shrill, warm, crimson, or bimodal jagged, fluffy) for extremely short display times and asked participants to judge whether each property corresponded to a particular target modality (e.g., auditory, gustatory, tactile, olfactory, visual). Results show that perceptual and conceptual processing share a tactile disadvantage: people are less accurate in detecting expected information regarding the sense of touch than any other modality. These findings support embodied assertions that the conceptual system uses the perceptual system for the purposes of representation. We suggest that the tactile disadvantage emerges for linguistic stimuli due to the evolutionary adaptation of endogenous attention to incoming sensory stimuli.",
keywords = "SYSTEMS, Conceptual processing, LANGUAGE, Embodied cognition, Language comprehension, BRAIN-REGIONS, Perceptual modality, ATTENTION, Features, Properties, DESIGNS, Endogenous attention, EVENTS, COGNITION",
author = "Louise Connell and Dermot Lynott",
year = "2010",
month = apr,
doi = "10.1016/j.cognition.2009.10.005",
language = "English",
volume = "115",
pages = "1--9",
journal = "Cognition",
issn = "0010-0277",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "1",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Look but don't touch

T2 - tactile disadvantage in processing modality-specific words

AU - Connell, Louise

AU - Lynott, Dermot

PY - 2010/4

Y1 - 2010/4

N2 - Recent neuroimaging research has shown that perceptual and conceptual processing share a common, modality-specific neural substrate, while work on modality switching costs suggests that they share some of the same attentional mechanisms. In three experiments, we employed a modality detection task that displayed modality-specific object properties (e.g., unimodal shrill, warm, crimson, or bimodal jagged, fluffy) for extremely short display times and asked participants to judge whether each property corresponded to a particular target modality (e.g., auditory, gustatory, tactile, olfactory, visual). Results show that perceptual and conceptual processing share a tactile disadvantage: people are less accurate in detecting expected information regarding the sense of touch than any other modality. These findings support embodied assertions that the conceptual system uses the perceptual system for the purposes of representation. We suggest that the tactile disadvantage emerges for linguistic stimuli due to the evolutionary adaptation of endogenous attention to incoming sensory stimuli.

AB - Recent neuroimaging research has shown that perceptual and conceptual processing share a common, modality-specific neural substrate, while work on modality switching costs suggests that they share some of the same attentional mechanisms. In three experiments, we employed a modality detection task that displayed modality-specific object properties (e.g., unimodal shrill, warm, crimson, or bimodal jagged, fluffy) for extremely short display times and asked participants to judge whether each property corresponded to a particular target modality (e.g., auditory, gustatory, tactile, olfactory, visual). Results show that perceptual and conceptual processing share a tactile disadvantage: people are less accurate in detecting expected information regarding the sense of touch than any other modality. These findings support embodied assertions that the conceptual system uses the perceptual system for the purposes of representation. We suggest that the tactile disadvantage emerges for linguistic stimuli due to the evolutionary adaptation of endogenous attention to incoming sensory stimuli.

KW - SYSTEMS

KW - Conceptual processing

KW - LANGUAGE

KW - Embodied cognition

KW - Language comprehension

KW - BRAIN-REGIONS

KW - Perceptual modality

KW - ATTENTION

KW - Features

KW - Properties

KW - DESIGNS

KW - Endogenous attention

KW - EVENTS

KW - COGNITION

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77249147354&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.10.005

DO - 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.10.005

M3 - Journal article

VL - 115

SP - 1

EP - 9

JO - Cognition

JF - Cognition

SN - 0010-0277

IS - 1

ER -