1 / 71

Language Influence on Motor Responses: Unraveling Embodiment Background

Explore how language input impacts motor output, uncovering the force of linguistic priming on motor behaviors, as studied by Lakoff, Pulvermueller, and more. Experiments investigating action-sentence compatibility effects, image schema orientation of verbs, and continuous eye and hand-tracking are analyzed for statistical significance and ecological validity. Methodologies involve challenging goals and perturbations in controlled and natural settings. Subjects with varying English proficiency levels participate in pitch and event directionality tasks, yielding insights into the connection between language and motor responses. The study evaluates pitch-by-event orientation interactions and identifies top performers across different conditions.

bette
Télécharger la présentation

Language Influence on Motor Responses: Unraveling Embodiment Background

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Can Language Force Your Hand? Priming Image Schemas To Influence Motor Responses

  2. EMBODIMENT

  3. BACKGROUND

  4. LANGUAGE INPUT AFFECTS MOTOR OUTPUT.

  5. LANGUAGE INPUT AFFECTS MOTOR OUTPUT. Lakoff

  6. LANGUAGE INPUT AFFECTS MOTOR OUTPUT. Lakoff, Pulvermueller

  7. LANGUAGE INPUT AFFECTS MOTOR OUTPUT. Lakoff, Pulvermueller, Turner

  8. LANGUAGE INPUT AFFECTS MOTOR OUTPUT. Lakoff, Pulvermueller, Turner, Coulson

  9. LANGUAGE INPUT AFFECTS MOTOR OUTPUT. Lakoff, Pulvermueller, Turner, Coulson, Bergen

  10. LANGUAGE INPUT AFFECTS MOTOR OUTPUT. Lakoff, Pulvermueller, Turner, Coulson, Bergen, Cooperider

  11. LANGUAGE INPUT AFFECTS MOTOR OUTPUT. Lakoff, Pulvermueller, Turner, Coulson, Bergen, Cooperider, Oakley

  12. LANGUAGE INPUT AFFECTS MOTOR OUTPUT. Lakoff, Pulvermueller, Turner, Coulson, Bergen, Cooperider, Oakley, Spivey

  13. LANGUAGE INPUT AFFECTS MOTOR OUTPUT. Lakoff, Pulvermueller, Turner, Coulson, Bergen, Cooperider, Oakley, Spivey, Casasanto

  14. LANGUAGE INPUT AFFECTS MOTOR OUTPUT. Lakoff, Pulvermueller, Turner, Coulson, Bergen, Cooperider, Oakley, Spivey, Casasanto, Casasanto

  15. LANGUAGE INPUT AFFECTS MOTOR OUTPUT. Lakoff, Pulvermueller, Turner, Coulson, Bergen, Cooperider, Oakley, Spivey, Casasanto, Casasanto, Parrill

  16. LANGUAGE INPUT AFFECTS MOTOR OUTPUT. Lakoff, Pulvermueller, Turner, Coulson, Bergen, Cooperider, Oakley, Spivey, Casasanto, Casasanto, Parrill, Tobin

  17. LANGUAGE INPUT AFFECTS MOTOR OUTPUT. Lakoff, Pulvermueller, Turner, Coulson, Bergen, Cooperider, Oakley, Spivey, Casasanto, Casasanto, Parrill, Tobin, Feist

  18. LANGUAGE INPUT AFFECTS MOTOR OUTPUT. Lakoff, Pulvermueller, Turner, Coulson, Bergen, Cooperider, Oakley, Spivey, Casasanto, Casasanto, Parrill, Tobin, Feist, Matlock

  19. Action-Sentence Compatibility Effect Glenberg & Kaschak (2002) Image Schema Orientation of Verbs Richardson, Spivey, Barsalou, & McRae (2003) Spivey, Richardson, Gonzalez-Marquez (2005) Continuous Eye and Hand-tracking Gold & Shadlen (2000) – decision formation Spivey, Grosjean, & Knoblich (2005) Richardson & Matlock (2007) – fictive motion

  20. Action-Sentence Compatibility Effect Glenberg & Kaschak (2002) Image Schema Orientation of Verbs Richardson, Spivey, Barsalou, & McRae (2003) Spivey, Richardson, Gonzalez-Marquez (2005) Continuous Eye and Hand-tracking Gold & Shadlen (2000) – decision formation Spivey, Grosjean, & Knoblich (2005) Richardson & Matlock (2007) – fictive motion

  21. Action-Sentence Compatibility Effect Glenberg & Kaschak (2002) Image Schema Orientation of Verbs Richardson, Spivey, Barsalou, & McRae (2003) Spivey, Richardson, Gonzalez-Marquez (2005) Continuous Eye and Hand-tracking Gold & Shadlen (2000) – decision formation Spivey, Grosjean, & Knoblich (2005) Richardson & Matlock (2007) – fictive motion

  22. Action-Sentence Compatibility Effect Glenberg & Kaschak (2002) Image Schema Orientation of Verbs Richardson, Spivey, Barsalou, & McRae (2003) Spivey, Richardson, Gonzalez-Marquez (2005) Continuous Eye and Hand-tracking Gold & Shadlen (2000) – decision formation Spivey, Grosjean, & Knoblich (2005) Richardson & Matlock (2007) – fictive motion

  23. DESIGN

  24. STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE VS ECOLOGICAL VALIDITY

  25. UNCONTROLLED NATURAL CONTROLLED UNNATURAL

  26. UNCONTROLLED NATURAL CONTROLLED UNNATURAL

  27. UNCONTROLLED NATURAL CONTROLLED UNNATURAL

  28. CHALLENGING GOAL

  29. LOOKING FOR PERTURBATIONS

  30. EXPERIMENT 1: METHOD & RESULTS

  31. 2 (pitch) x 3 (event directionality) within-subject design. • 2 levels in the pitch condition: • (CASASANTO et al, 2003), (RUSCONI et al, 2005) • high (up, right) • low • 3 levels in event directionality condition : • (SPIVEY, RICHARDSON, GONZALEZ-MARQUEZ, 2005) • upward motion verbs • rightward motion verbs • symmetrical motion verbs

  32. Example : Upward motion condition 1. The curtain was lifting for the play 2. The bird was flying toward the treetops 3. The balloon was floating into the clouds LOW HIGH

  33. SUBJECTS • Over 18 • Various levels of English proficiency • 31 (-1) • The order of the stimuli was randomized across participants.

  34. Pitch (hi/lo) by event orientation (y axis) * Pitch-by-event orientation interaction (p<.05)

  35. Pitch (hi/lo) by event orientation (x axis) *

  36. We found no significant differences between performance of participants with extensive (6 or more years) of musical training (vertical or horizontal). We found no signficant differences in performance between participants with and without an understanding of the experiment.

  37. TOP SCORES SCARECROW REDWOOD BRIAR

  38. EXPERIMENT 2: METHOD & RESULTS

More Related