Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Variability driven animacy effects

Research

Links

Text available via DOI:

Keywords

View graph of relations

Variability driven animacy effects: evidence of structural, not conceptual differences in processing animates and inanimates

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Published

Standard

Variability driven animacy effects: evidence of structural, not conceptual differences in processing animates and inanimates. / Kovic, Vanja; Plunkett, Kim; Westermann, Gert.
In: Psihologija, Vol. 43, No. 1, 2010, p. 65-83.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Harvard

Kovic, V, Plunkett, K & Westermann, G 2010, 'Variability driven animacy effects: evidence of structural, not conceptual differences in processing animates and inanimates', Psihologija, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 65-83. https://doi.org/10.2298/PSI1001065K

APA

Kovic, V., Plunkett, K., & Westermann, G. (2010). Variability driven animacy effects: evidence of structural, not conceptual differences in processing animates and inanimates. Psihologija, 43(1), 65-83. https://doi.org/10.2298/PSI1001065K

Vancouver

Kovic V, Plunkett K, Westermann G. Variability driven animacy effects: evidence of structural, not conceptual differences in processing animates and inanimates. Psihologija. 2010;43(1):65-83. doi: 10.2298/PSI1001065K

Author

Kovic, Vanja ; Plunkett, Kim ; Westermann, Gert. / Variability driven animacy effects : evidence of structural, not conceptual differences in processing animates and inanimates. In: Psihologija. 2010 ; Vol. 43, No. 1. pp. 65-83.

Bibtex

@article{37d006f8e7c742eeb38954a4fa123fb1,
title = "Variability driven animacy effects: evidence of structural, not conceptual differences in processing animates and inanimates",
abstract = "The present eye-tracking study demonstrates that when animate and inanimate object pictures are presented within a single-study, there are no systematic differences between processing these two categories objects. Although participants were taking less time to initiate their first gaze towards animate than to inanimate objects, a result compatible with findings of Proverbio et al. (2007), it turned out that this quicker initiation of the first look in animates was driven by mammals and reptiles only and did not apply to insects or aquatic animals, most probably due to the structural differences within these subcategories. Fixations in this study do not cluster around certain features or areas of the objects for either animate or inanimate categories. Moreover, detailed analysis of looking behaviour does not reveal a clear animate-inanimate distinction.Thus, given the failure of finding systematic differences between animates and inanimates when assessed using various looking behaviour measurements, the results do not support the prediction from modality specific conceptual account. In fact, these results are more in agreement with an alternative, distributed account of semantic representation that explains processing differences by structural differences between animate and inanimate objects.",
keywords = "animate, inanimate objects, eye-tracking, mental representations, EYE-MOVEMENTS, TIME-COURSE, INTEGRATION, KNOWLEDGE, DEFICITS, PICTURES, ACCOUNT, OBJECTS",
author = "Vanja Kovic and Kim Plunkett and Gert Westermann",
year = "2010",
doi = "10.2298/PSI1001065K",
language = "English",
volume = "43",
pages = "65--83",
journal = "Psihologija",
issn = "0048-5705",
publisher = "Serbian Psychological Society",
number = "1",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Variability driven animacy effects

T2 - evidence of structural, not conceptual differences in processing animates and inanimates

AU - Kovic, Vanja

AU - Plunkett, Kim

AU - Westermann, Gert

PY - 2010

Y1 - 2010

N2 - The present eye-tracking study demonstrates that when animate and inanimate object pictures are presented within a single-study, there are no systematic differences between processing these two categories objects. Although participants were taking less time to initiate their first gaze towards animate than to inanimate objects, a result compatible with findings of Proverbio et al. (2007), it turned out that this quicker initiation of the first look in animates was driven by mammals and reptiles only and did not apply to insects or aquatic animals, most probably due to the structural differences within these subcategories. Fixations in this study do not cluster around certain features or areas of the objects for either animate or inanimate categories. Moreover, detailed analysis of looking behaviour does not reveal a clear animate-inanimate distinction.Thus, given the failure of finding systematic differences between animates and inanimates when assessed using various looking behaviour measurements, the results do not support the prediction from modality specific conceptual account. In fact, these results are more in agreement with an alternative, distributed account of semantic representation that explains processing differences by structural differences between animate and inanimate objects.

AB - The present eye-tracking study demonstrates that when animate and inanimate object pictures are presented within a single-study, there are no systematic differences between processing these two categories objects. Although participants were taking less time to initiate their first gaze towards animate than to inanimate objects, a result compatible with findings of Proverbio et al. (2007), it turned out that this quicker initiation of the first look in animates was driven by mammals and reptiles only and did not apply to insects or aquatic animals, most probably due to the structural differences within these subcategories. Fixations in this study do not cluster around certain features or areas of the objects for either animate or inanimate categories. Moreover, detailed analysis of looking behaviour does not reveal a clear animate-inanimate distinction.Thus, given the failure of finding systematic differences between animates and inanimates when assessed using various looking behaviour measurements, the results do not support the prediction from modality specific conceptual account. In fact, these results are more in agreement with an alternative, distributed account of semantic representation that explains processing differences by structural differences between animate and inanimate objects.

KW - animate

KW - inanimate objects

KW - eye-tracking

KW - mental representations

KW - EYE-MOVEMENTS

KW - TIME-COURSE

KW - INTEGRATION

KW - KNOWLEDGE

KW - DEFICITS

KW - PICTURES

KW - ACCOUNT

KW - OBJECTS

U2 - 10.2298/PSI1001065K

DO - 10.2298/PSI1001065K

M3 - Journal article

VL - 43

SP - 65

EP - 83

JO - Psihologija

JF - Psihologija

SN - 0048-5705

IS - 1

ER -