Actions, Action Effects and Timing in the Action-Sentence Compatibility Effect

abstractEmbodied theories of cognition propose that humans use sensorimotor systems in processing language. The Action-Sentence Compatibility Effect (ACE) refers to the finding that motor responses are facilitated after comprehending sentences that imply movement in the same direction. In sign languages there is a potential conflict between sensorimotor systems and linguistic semantics: movement away from the signer is perceived as motion toward the comprehender. We examined whether perceptual processing of sign movement or verb semantics modulate the ACE. Deaf ASL signers performed a semantic judgment task while viewing signed sentences expressing toward or away motion. We found a significant congruency effect relative to the verb’s semantics rather than to the perceived motion. This result indicates that (a) the motor system is involved in the comprehension of a visual–manual language, and (b) motor simulations for sign language are modulated by verb semantics rather than by the perceived visual motion of the hands.

Download Full-text

When do language comprehenders mentally simulate locations?

Cognitive Linguistics ◽

10.1515/cog-2015-0123 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 27 (2) ◽

pp. 181-203 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Nian Liu ◽

Benjamin Bergen

Keyword(s):

Compatibility Effect ◽

Mental Simulation ◽

Language Understanding ◽

Grammatical Form ◽

Grammatical Aspect ◽

Simulation Based ◽

Mixed Action ◽

Motor Actions ◽

Action Sentence

AbstractEmbodied approaches to comprehension propose that understanding language entails performing mental simulations of its content. The evidence, however, is mixed. Action-sentence Compatibility Effect studies (Glenberg and Kaschak 2002) report mental simulation of motor actions during processing of motion language. But the same studies find no evidence that language comprehenders perform spatial simulations of the corresponding locations. This challenges simulation-based approaches. If locations are not represented in simulation, but are still understood, then simulation may be unnecessary for understanding. We conducted a Location-sentence Compatibility experiment, to determine whether understanders mentally simulate locations. People did indeed simulate locations, but only when sentences used progressive (and not perfect) grammatical aspect. Moreover, mental simulations of locations differed for language about concrete versus abstract events. These findings substantiate the role of mental simulation in language understanding, while highlighting the importance of the grammatical form of utterances as well as their content.

Download Full-text

The action-sentence compatibility effect (ACE) a benchmark finding for embodiment - A meta-analysis

10.31234/osf.io/wfpz7 ◽

2022 ◽

Author(s):

Alice Winter ◽

Carolin Dudschig ◽

Barbara Kaup

Keyword(s):

Publication Bias ◽

Language Comprehension ◽

Effect Size ◽

Compatibility Effect ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Analytic Approach ◽

Research Practices ◽

Reliable Effect ◽

Negative Effect ◽

Action Sentence

The embodied account of language comprehension has been one of the most influentialtheoretical developments in the recent decades addressing the question how humanscomprehend and represent language. To examine its assumptions, many studies havemade use of behavioral paradigms involving basic compatibility effects. Theaction–sentence compatibility effect (ACE) is one of the most influential of thesecompatibility effects and is the most widely cited evidence for the assumptions of theembodied account of language comprehension. However, recently there have beendifficulties to extend or even to reliably replicate the ACE. The conflicting findingsconcerning the ACE and its extensions lead to the discussion whether the ACE isindeed a reliable effect or whether it might be the product of publication bias or otherdistorting research practices. In a first step we conducted a meta-analysis using arandom-effects model. This analysis revealed a small but significant effect size of theACE (d = .129, p = .007). A second meta-analytic approach supports these findings ofthe existence of an ACE (Fisher’s method: χ2 = 124.379, p < .001). Furthermore, thetask-parameter Delay occurred as a factor of interest in whether the ACE appears withpositive or negative effect direction. This meta-analysis further assessed for potentialpublication bias and suggests that there is bias in the ACE literature.

Download Full-text

Action-Sentence Compatibility: The Role of Action Effects and Timing

Frontiers in Psychology ◽

10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00272 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 4 ◽

Cited By ~ 12

Author(s):

Christiane Diefenbach ◽

Martina Rieger ◽

Cristina Massen ◽

Wolfgang Prinz

Keyword(s):

Action Effects ◽

Action Sentence

Download Full-text

Stimulus-Response and Response-Effect Compatibility With Touchless Gestures and Moving Action Effects

Human Factors The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society ◽

10.1177/0018720819831814 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 61 (8) ◽

pp. 1297-1314 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Markus Janczyk ◽

Aiping Xiong ◽

Robert W. Proctor

Keyword(s):

Opposite Direction ◽

Compatibility Effect ◽

Button Press ◽

Action Effects ◽

Response Effect ◽

Stimulus Response ◽

Display Content

Objective: To determine whether response-effect (R-E) compatibility or stimulus-response (S-R) compatibility is more critical for touchless gesture responses. Background: Content on displays can be moved in the same direction (S-R incompatible but R-E compatible) or opposite direction (S-R compatible but R-E incompatible) as the touchless gesture that produces the movement. Previous studies suggested that it is easier to produce a button-press response when it is R-E compatible (and S-R incompatible). However, whether this R-E compatibility effect also occurs for touchless gesture responses is unknown. Method: Experiments 1 and 2 employed an R-E compatibility manipulation in which participants made responses with an upward or downward touchless gesture that resulted in the display content moving in the same (compatible) or opposite (incompatible) direction. Experiment 3 employed an S-R compatibility manipulation in which the stimulus occurred at the upper or lower location on the screen. Results: Overall, only negligible influences of R-E compatibility on performing the touchless gestures were observed (in contrast to button-press responses), whereas S-R compatibility heavily affected the gestural responses. Conclusion: The R-E compatibility obtained in many previous studies with various types of responses appears not to hold for touchless gestures as responses. Application: The results suggest that in the design of touchless interfaces, unique factors may contribute to determining which mappings of gesture and display movements are preferred by users.

Download Full-text

A pre-registered, multi-lab non-replication of the action-sentence compatibility effect (ACE)

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review ◽

10.3758/s13423-021-01927-8 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Richard D. Morey ◽

Michael P. Kaschak ◽

Antonio M. Díez-Álamo ◽

Arthur M. Glenberg ◽

Rolf A. Zwaan ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Motor Activity ◽

Compatibility Effect ◽

The Body ◽

Analytic Estimate ◽

Action Sentence

AbstractThe Action-sentence Compatibility Effect (ACE) is a well-known demonstration of the role of motor activity in the comprehension of language. Participants are asked to make sensibility judgments on sentences by producing movements toward the body or away from the body. The ACE is the finding that movements are faster when the direction of the movement (e.g., toward) matches the direction of the action in the to-be-judged sentence (e.g., Art gave you the pen describes action toward you). We report on a pre-registered, multi-lab replication of one version of the ACE. The results show that none of the 18 labs involved in the study observed a reliable ACE, and that the meta-analytic estimate of the size of the ACE was essentially zero.

Download Full-text