cometadata/datacite-titles-descriptions-related-identifiers huggingface dataset:
DOI: 10.7910/dvn/v1rjpf/jloyke
title: cbb20150630_03.txt.gz

description: :unav
DOI: 10.7910/dvn/v1rjpf/jzupe3
title: cbb20150207_03.txt.gz

description: :unav
DOI: 10.7910/dvn/v1rjpf/xtl0kn
title: cbb20151031_03.txt.gz

description: :unav
DOI: 10.7910/dvn/v1rjpf/ex2hl2
title: cbb20150310_03.txt.gz

description: :unav
DOI: 10.7910/dvn/v1rjpf/jgsswh
title: cbb20150412_03.txt.gz

description: :unav
DOI: 10.7910/dvn/v1rjpf/mteevp
title: cbb20150721_03.txt.gz

description: :unav
DOI: 10.7910/dvn/v1rjpf/kwmgbr
title: cbb20150526_03.txt.gz

description: :unav
DOI: 10.7910/dvn/v1rjpf/qmzizk
title: cbb20150816_03.txt.gz

description: :unav
DOI: 10.7910/dvn/v1rjpf/lpdhl3
title: cbb20151006_03.txt.gz

description: :unav
DOI: 10.7910/dvn/v1rjpf/f8ihyn
title: cbb20150314_03.txt.gz

description: :unav
DOI: 10.7910/dvn/v1rjpf/tklxkq
title: cbb20150808_03.txt.gz

description: :unav
DOI: 10.7910/dvn/v1rjpf/hlppr9
title: cbb20150123_03.txt.gz

description: :unav
DOI: 10.7910/dvn/v1rjpf/vnfttc
title: cbb20150603_03.txt.gz

description: :unav
DOI: 10.7910/dvn/v1rjpf/rnikkh
title: cbb20150826_03.txt.gz

description: :unav
DOI: 10.7910/dvn/v1rjpf/ddkvfe
title: cbb20150130_03.txt.gz

description: :unav
DOI: 10.7910/dvn/v1rjpf/nhsy42
title: cbb20150726_03.txt.gz

description: :unav
DOI: 10.7910/dvn/v1rjpf/l0ugtb
title: cbb20150421_03.txt.gz

description: :unav
DOI: 10.7910/dvn/v1rjpf/3lami1
title: cbb20151105_03.txt.gz

description: :unav
DOI: 10.7910/dvn/v1rjpf/uidnc3
title: cbb20150227_03.txt.gz

description: :unav
DOI: 10.7910/dvn/v1rjpf/qydflv
title: cbb20150327_03.txt.gz

description: :unav
DOI: 10.7910/dvn/v1rjpf/w3kvu5
title: cbb20150707_03.txt.gz

description: :unav
DOI: 10.7910/dvn/v1rjpf/twcdav
title: cbb20150105_03.txt.gz

description: :unav
DOI: 10.7910/dvn/v1rjpf/ebhzqq
title: cbb20151127_03.txt.gz

description: :unav
DOI: 10.7910/dvn/v1rjpf/ofioxb
title: cbb20150228_03.txt.gz

description: :unav
DOI: 10.7910/dvn/v1rjpf/iqr7r8
title: cbb20150119_03.txt.gz

description: :unav
DOI: 10.7910/dvn/v1rjpf/oeskdm
title: cbb20151212_03.txt.gz

description: :unav
DOI: 10.7910/dvn/v1rjpf/ax6sgi
title: cbb20150625_03.txt.gz

description: :unav
DOI: 10.7910/dvn/v1rjpf/rvxhjz
title: cbb20151023_03.txt.gz

description: :unav
DOI: 10.7910/dvn/v1rjpf/fp9pup
title: cbb20151208_03.txt.gz

description: :unav
DOI: 10.7910/dvn/v1rjpf/g6zven
title: cbb20150709_03.txt.gz

description: :unav
DOI: 10.7910/dvn/v1rjpf/s1osqw
title: cbb20150224_03.txt.gz

description: :unav
DOI: 10.7910/dvn/v1rjpf/llhenp
title: cbb20150112_03.txt.gz

description: :unav
DOI: 10.7910/dvn/v1rjpf/yenyu7
title: cbb20150719_03.txt.gz

description: :unav
DOI: 10.7910/dvn/v1rjpf/8ajavb
title: cbb20150118_03.txt.gz

description: :unav
DOI: 10.7910/dvn/v1rjpf/ukjrt3
title: cbb20150508_03.txt.gz

description: :unav
DOI: 10.7910/dvn/v1rjpf/zban6t
title: cbb20150312_03.txt.gz

description: :unav
DOI: 10.7910/dvn/v1rjpf/5gr8xu
title: cbb20150620_03.txt.gz

description: :unav
DOI: 10.7910/dvn/v1rjpf/0h1bms
title: cbb20150411_03.txt.gz

description: :unav
DOI: 10.7910/dvn/v1rjpf/dw7mly
title: cbb20151206_03.txt.gz

description: :unav
DOI: 10.7910/dvn/v1rjpf/qk3n31
title: cbb20150624_03.txt.gz

description: :unav
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.4210863.v45
title: 'Polished Interior. Audible Echo.' ERPs showing perceptual simulation since actual 160 ms (Bernabeu, Willems, & Louwerse, in prep.)

description: Images: EEG montage used, beside international type; experiment overview; waveforms; difference topographies. For a more detailed view of the waveforms per group and electrode, visit: <b>https://pablobernabeu.shinyapps.io/export_files/</b><b>Abstract. </b>The engagement of sensory systems during word comprehension has been extensively documented; yet, the precise relevance of those remains unclear. We probed into this with an event-related potential (ERP) experiment which implemented the conceptual modality switch. This paradigm works as follows. In each trial, participants judge whether a property word can describe a concept word. However, the critical manipulation is the conceptual modality of the trials—e.g., haptic or visual—, as enabled by modality-normed stimuli. Switching across trials in different modalities, compared to maintaining a modality, incurs a switching cost. So far, experiments have measured this either on-line, from ERPs time-locked to the second word of the target trials, or off-line, from response times at the end of those trials. Problematically, both measurements fail to control a possible switch at the first word, as well as the semantic relation between the first and second words. In tackling the actual time frame of lexical and semantic access, we time-locked ERPs to the first word of target trials. Then, the experiment included different types of switch—from auditory to visual, and from haptic to visual—, which were compared to the non-switch—visual to visual. Further, we had a quick response group (<i>n</i> = 21), and a self-paced group (<i>n</i> = 21), alongside a few participants with no speed instructions (<i>n</i> = 5). The results, analyzed with mixed effects models, reveal ERP effects of modality-switching in four typical time windows between 160 and 750 ms after word onset. The effects are generally characterized by a more negative amplitude for modality-switching than not switching, and they arise with both types of switch, in both groups, and in anterior as well as posterior brain regions. In sum, the early start and broad scope of this effect suggest that perceptual simulation contributes fundamentally to word comprehension.
DOI: 10.7910/dvn/v1rjpf/rkcksm
title: cbb20150306_03.txt.gz

description: :unav
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.4210863.v46
title: ‘Noiseless response. Firm security.’ ERPs showing perceptual simulation since actual 160 ms (Bernabeu, Willems, & Louwerse, in prep.)

description: Images: EEG montage used, beside international type; experiment overview; waveforms; difference topographies. For a more detailed view of the waveforms per group and electrode, visit: <b>https://pablobernabeu.shinyapps.io/export_files/</b><b>Abstract. </b>The engagement of sensory systems during word comprehension has been extensively documented; yet, the precise relevance of those remains unclear. We probed into this with an event-related potential (ERP) experiment which implemented the conceptual modality switch. This paradigm works as follows. In each trial, participants judge whether a property word can describe a concept word. However, the critical manipulation is the conceptual modality of the trials—e.g., haptic or visual—, as enabled by modality-normed stimuli. Switching across trials in different modalities, compared to maintaining a modality, incurs a switching cost. So far, experiments have measured this either on-line, from ERPs time-locked to the second word of the target trials, or off-line, from response times at the end of those trials. Problematically, both measurements fail to control a possible switch at the first word, as well as the semantic relation between the first and second words. In tackling the actual time frame of lexical and semantic access, we time-locked ERPs to the first word of target trials. Then, the experiment included different types of switch—from auditory to visual, and from haptic to visual—, which were compared to the non-switch—visual to visual. Further, we had a quick response group (<i>n</i> = 21), and a self-paced group (<i>n</i> = 21), alongside a few participants with no speed instructions (<i>n</i> = 5). The results, analyzed with mixed effects models, reveal ERP effects of modality-switching in four typical time windows between 160 and 750 ms after word onset. The effects are generally characterized by a more negative amplitude for modality-switching than not switching, and they arise with both types of switch, in both groups, and in anterior as well as posterior brain regions. In sum, the early start and broad scope of this effect suggest that perceptual simulation contributes fundamentally to word comprehension.
DOI: 10.7910/dvn/v1rjpf/rsinzl
title: cbb20150706_03.txt.gz

description: :unav
DOI: 10.7910/dvn/v1rjpf/y1stdw
title: cbb20150115_03.txt.gz

description: :unav
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.4210863.v47
title: ‘Soundless answer. Firm safety.’ ERPs showing perceptual simulation since actual 160 ms (Bernabeu, Willems, & Louwerse, in prep.)

description: Images: EEG montage used, beside international type; experiment overview; waveforms; difference topographies. For a detailed view of the waveforms per group and electrode, see https://pablobernabeu.shinyapps.io/export_files/<b>Abstract. </b>The engagement of sensory systems during word comprehension has been extensively documented; yet, the precise relevance of those remains unclear. We probed into this with an event-related potential (ERP) experiment which implemented the conceptual modality switch. This paradigm works as follows. In each trial, participants judge whether a property word can describe a concept word. However, the critical manipulation is the conceptual modality of the trials—e.g., haptic or visual—, as enabled by modality-normed stimuli.<sup>1</sup> Switching across trials in different modalities, compared to maintaining a modality, incurs a switching cost. So far, experiments have measured this either on-line, from ERPs time-locked to the second word of the target trials, or off-line, from response times at the end of those trials. Problematically, both measurements fail to control a possible switch at the first word, as well as the semantic relation between the first and second words. We time-locked ERPs to the first word of target trials, thus gaining insight into the actual time frame of lexical and semantic access. Next, the experiment included different types of switch—from auditory to visual, and from haptic to visual—, which were compared to the non-switch—visual to visual. We also had a quick response group (<i>n</i> = 21), and a self-paced group (<i>n</i> = 21), alongside a few participants with no speed instructions (<i>n</i> = 5). The results, analyzed with mixed effects models, reveal ERP effects of modality-switching in four typical time windows between 160 and 750 ms after word onset. The effects are generally characterized by a more negative amplitude for modality-switching than not switching, and they arise with both types of switch, in both groups, and in anterior as well as posterior brain regions. In sum, the early start and broad scope of this effect suggest that perceptual simulation contributes fundamentally to word comprehension.<sup>1</sup> See stimuli norming at: https://goo.gl/IK8K99
DOI: 10.7910/dvn/v1rjpf/zbvkvx
title: cbb20150715_03.txt.gz

description: :unav
DOI: 10.7910/dvn/v1rjpf/ok4ofz
title: cbb20150803_03.txt.gz

description: :unav
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.4210863.v49
title: ‘Soundless answer. Firm safety.’ ERPs showing perceptual simulation since actual 160 ms (Bernabeu, Willems, & Louwerse, in prep.)

description: Images: EEG montage used, beside international type; experiment overview; waveforms; difference topographies. For a detailed view of the waveforms per group and electrode, see https://pablobernabeu.shinyapps.io/export_files/<b>Abstract. </b>The engagement of sensory systems during word comprehension has been extensively documented; yet, the precise relevance of those remains unclear. We probed into this with an event-related potential (ERP) experiment which implemented the conceptual modality switch. This paradigm works as follows. In each trial, participants judge whether a property word can describe a concept word. However, the critical manipulation is the conceptual modality of the trials—e.g., haptic or visual—, as enabled by modality-normed stimuli.<sup>1</sup> Switching across trials in different modalities, compared to maintaining a modality, incurs a switching cost. So far, experiments have measured this either on-line, from ERPs time-locked to the second word of the target trials, or off-line, from response times at the end of those trials. Problematically, both measurements fail to control a possible switch at the first word, as well as the semantic relation between the first and second words. We time-locked ERPs to the first word of target trials, thus gaining insight into the actual time frame of lexical and semantic access. Next, the experiment included different types of switch—from auditory to visual, and from haptic to visual—, which were compared to the non-switch—visual to visual. We also had a quick response group (<i>n</i> = 21), and a self-paced group (<i>n</i> = 21), alongside a few participants with no speed instructions (<i>n</i> = 5). The results, analyzed with mixed effects models, reveal ERP effects of modality-switching in four typical time windows between 160 and 750 ms after word onset. The effects are generally characterized by a more negative amplitude for modality-switching than not switching, and they arise with both types of switch, in both groups, and in anterior as well as posterior brain regions. In sum, the early start and broad scope of this effect suggest that perceptual simulation contributes fundamentally to word comprehension.<sup>1</sup> See stimuli norming at: https://goo.gl/IK8K99
DOI: 10.7910/dvn/v1rjpf/hxb6eo
title: cbb20151214_03.txt.gz

description: :unav
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.4210863.v50
title: ‘Soundless answer. Firm safety.’ ERPs showing perceptual simulation since actual 160 ms (Bernabeu, Willems, & Louwerse, in prep.)

description: Images: EEG montage used, beside international type; experiment overview; waveforms; difference topographies. For a detailed view of the waveforms per group and electrode, see https://pablobernabeu.shinyapps.io/export_files/<b>Abstract. </b>The engagement of sensory systems during word comprehension has been extensively documented; yet, the precise relevance of those remains unclear. We probed into this with an event-related potential (ERP) experiment which implemented the conceptual modality switch. This paradigm works as follows. In each trial, participants judge whether a property word can describe a concept word. However, the critical manipulation is the conceptual modality of the trials—e.g., haptic or visual—, as enabled by modality-normed stimuli.<sup>1</sup> Switching across trials in different modalities, compared to maintaining a modality, incurs a switching cost. So far, experiments have measured this either on-line, from ERPs time-locked to the second word of the target trials, or off-line, from response times at the end of those trials. Problematically, both measurements fail to control a possible switch at the first word, as well as the semantic relation between the first and second words. We time-locked ERPs to the first word of target trials, thus gaining insight into the actual time frame of lexical and semantic access. Next, the experiment included different types of switch—from auditory to visual, and from haptic to visual—, which were compared to the non-switch—visual to visual. We also had a quick response group (<i>n</i> = 21), and a self-paced group (<i>n</i> = 21), alongside a few participants with no speed instructions (<i>n</i> = 5). The results, analyzed with mixed effects models, reveal ERP effects of modality-switching in four typical time windows between 160 and 750 ms after word onset. The effects are generally characterized by a more negative amplitude for modality-switching than not switching, and they arise with both types of switch, in both groups, and in anterior as well as posterior brain regions. In sum, the early start and broad scope of this effect suggest that perceptual simulation contributes fundamentally to word comprehension.<sup>1</sup> See stimuli norming at: https://goo.gl/IK8K99
DOI: 10.7910/dvn/v1rjpf/hzfxqc
title: cbb20150805_03.txt.gz

description: :unav
DOI: 10.7910/dvn/v1rjpf/oieshc
title: cbb20150318_03.txt.gz

description: :unav
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.4210863.v51
title: ‘Soundless answer. Firm safety.’ ERPs showing perceptual simulation since actual 160 ms (Bernabeu, Willems, & Louwerse, in prep.)

description: Images: EEG montage used, beside international type; experiment overview; waveforms; difference topographies. For a detailed view of the waveforms per group and electrode, see https://pablobernabeu.shinyapps.io/export_files/<b>Abstract. </b>The engagement of sensory systems during word comprehension has been extensively documented; yet, the precise relevance of those remains unclear. We probed into this with an event-related potential (ERP) experiment which implemented the conceptual modality switch. This paradigm works as follows. In each trial, participants judge whether a property word can describe a concept word. However, the critical manipulation is the conceptual modality of the trials—e.g., haptic or visual—, as enabled by modality-normed stimuli.<sup>1</sup> Switching across trials in different modalities, compared to maintaining a modality, incurs a switching cost. So far, experiments have measured this either on-line, from ERPs time-locked to the second word of the target trials, or off-line, from response times at the end of those trials. Problematically, both measurements fail to control a possible switch at the first word, as well as the semantic relation between the first and second words. We time-locked ERPs to the first word of target trials, thus gaining insight into the actual time frame of lexical and semantic access. Next, the experiment included different types of switch—from auditory to visual, and from haptic to visual—, which were compared to the non-switch—visual to visual. We also had a quick response group (<i>n</i> = 21), and a self-paced group (<i>n</i> = 21), alongside a few participants with no speed instructions (<i>n</i> = 5). The results, analyzed with mixed effects models, reveal ERP effects of modality-switching in four typical time windows between 160 and 750 ms after word onset. The effects are generally characterized by a more negative amplitude for modality-switching than not switching, and they arise with both types of switch, in both groups, and in anterior as well as posterior brain regions. In sum, the early start and broad scope of this effect suggest that perceptual simulation contributes fundamentally to word comprehension.<sup>1</sup> See stimuli norming at: https://goo.gl/IK8K99
DOI: 10.7910/dvn/v1rjpf/v82juf
title: cbb20151005_03.txt.gz

description: :unav
DOI: 10.7910/dvn/v1rjpf/odh5go
title: cbb20151130_03.txt.gz

description: :unav
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.4210863.v52
title: ‘Soundless answer. Firm safety.’ ERPs showing perceptual simulation since actual 160 ms (Bernabeu, Willems, & Louwerse, in prep.)

description: Images: EEG montage used, beside international type; experiment overview; waveforms; difference topographies. For a detailed view of the waveforms per group and electrode, see https://pablobernabeu.shinyapps.io/export_files/<b>Abstract. </b>The engagement of sensory systems during word comprehension has been extensively documented; yet, the precise relevance of those remains unclear. We probed into this with an event-related potential (ERP) experiment which implemented the conceptual modality switch. This paradigm works as follows. In each trial, participants judge whether a property word can describe a concept word. However, the critical manipulation is the conceptual modality of the trials—e.g., haptic or visual—, as enabled by modality-normed stimuli.<sup>1</sup> Switching across trials in different modalities, compared to maintaining a modality, incurs a switching cost. So far, experiments have measured this either on-line, from ERPs time-locked to the second word of the target trials, or off-line, from response times at the end of those trials. Problematically, both measurements fail to control a possible switch at the first word, as well as the semantic relation between the first and second words. We time-locked ERPs to the first word of target trials, thus gaining insight into the actual time frame of lexical and semantic access. Next, the experiment included different types of switch—from auditory to visual, and from haptic to visual—, which were compared to the non-switch—visual to visual. We also had a quick response group (<i>n</i> = 21), and a self-paced group (<i>n</i> = 21), alongside a few participants with no speed instructions (<i>n</i> = 5). The results, analyzed with mixed effects models, reveal ERP effects of modality-switching in four typical time windows between 160 and 750 ms after word onset. The effects are generally characterized by a more negative amplitude for modality-switching than not switching, and they arise with both types of switch, in both groups, and in anterior as well as posterior brain regions. In sum, the early start and broad scope of this effect suggest that perceptual simulation contributes fundamentally to word comprehension.<sup>1</sup> See stimuli norming at: https://goo.gl/IK8K99
DOI: 10.7910/dvn/v1rjpf/ska9d8
title: cbb20151118_03.txt.gz

description: :unav
DOI: 10.7910/dvn/v1rjpf/dun5ok
title: cbb20150414_03.txt.gz

description: :unav
DOI: 10.7910/dvn/v1rjpf/91ym6b
title: cbb20150506_03.txt.gz

description: :unav
DOI: 10.7910/dvn/v1rjpf/7mirhm
title: cbb20150329_03.txt.gz

description: :unav
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.4210863.v55
title: ‘Soundless answer. Firm safety.’ ERPs showing perceptual simulation since actual 160 ms (Bernabeu, Willems, & Louwerse, in prep.)

description: Images: EEG montage used, beside international type; experiment overview; waveforms; difference topographies. For a detailed view of the waveforms per group and electrode, see https://pablobernabeu.shinyapps.io/export_files/<b>Abstract. </b>The engagement of sensory systems during word comprehension has been extensively documented; yet, the precise relevance of those remains unclear. We probed into this with an event-related potential (ERP) experiment which implemented the conceptual modality switch. This paradigm works as follows. In each trial, participants judge whether a property word can describe a concept word. However, the critical manipulation is the conceptual modality of the trials—e.g., haptic or visual—, as enabled by modality-normed stimuli.<sup>1</sup> Switching across trials in different modalities, compared to maintaining a modality, incurs a switching cost. So far, experiments have measured this either on-line, from ERPs time-locked to the second word of the target trials, or off-line, from response times at the end of those trials. Problematically, both measurements fail to control a possible switch at the first word, as well as the semantic relation between the first and second words. We time-locked ERPs to the first word of target trials, thus gaining insight into the actual time frame of lexical and semantic access. Next, the experiment included different types of switch—from auditory to visual, and from haptic to visual—, which were compared to the non-switch—visual to visual. We also had a quick response group (<i>n</i> = 21), and a self-paced group (<i>n</i> = 21), alongside a few participants with no speed instructions (<i>n</i> = 5). The results, analyzed with mixed effects models, reveal ERP effects of modality-switching in four typical time windows between 160 and 750 ms after word onset. The effects are generally characterized by a more negative amplitude for modality-switching than not switching, and they arise with both types of switch, in both groups, and in anterior as well as posterior brain regions. In sum, the early start and broad scope of this effect suggest that perceptual simulation contributes fundamentally to word comprehension.<sup>1</sup> See stimuli norming at: https://goo.gl/IK8K99