cometadata/datacite-titles-descriptions-related-identifiers huggingface dataset:
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.4210863.v56
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 transition of conceptual modality across trials—e.g., haptic to visual—, which is enabled by modality-normed context and target trials. Switching across trials in different modalities, compared to maintaining a modality, incurs a switching cost. Previous experiments measured this from ERPs time-locked to the second word of target trials, and then from response times. In the current follow-up, we tackled more precisely the time frame of lexical and semantic access by time-locking ERPs to the first word of target trials, which also avoided semantic confounds on the target word. Next, the experiment featured 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/h8nf11
title: cbb20150510_03.txt.gz

description: :unav
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.4210863.v57
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 transition of conceptual modality across trials—e.g., haptic to visual—, which is enabled by modality-normed context and target trials. Switching across trials in different modalities, compared to maintaining a modality, incurs a switching cost. Previous experiments measured this from ERPs time-locked to the second word of target trials, and then from response times. In the current follow-up, we tackled more precisely the time frame of lexical and semantic access by time-locking ERPs to the first word of target trials, which also avoided semantic confounds on the target word. Next, the experiment featured 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/mh8l81
title: cbb20150331_03.txt.gz

description: :unav
DOI: 10.7910/dvn/v1rjpf/srtw5s
title: cbb20150613_03.txt.gz

description: :unav
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.4210863.v58
title: ‘Soundless answer. Firm safety.’ ERPs showing perceptual simulation since actual 160 ms (Bernabeu, Willems, & Louwerse, in prep.)

description: Images: experiment overview; stimuli; EEG montage, beside standard; waveforms; difference topographies, statistical analysis; fixed effects of final models; raw data. For a detailed view of the waveforms per group and electrode, see https://pablobernabeu.shinyapps.io/export_files/.The entire data set is available at osf.io/97unm.<b>Abstract. </b>The engagement of sensory systems during word comprehension has been extensively documented, but the precise relevance of it is yet 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 successive trials—e.g., haptic then visual—, as enabled by modality-normed stimuli. Switching across trials in different modalities, compared to maintaining a modality, incurs a switching cost. Previous experiments measured this from ERPs time-locked to the second word of target trials, and then from response times. In the current follow-up, we tackled more precisely the time frame of lexical and semantic access by time-locking ERPs to the first word of target trials, which also helped to avoid confound influence on the target word. Next, the experiment featured 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 set between 160 and 750 ms after word onset. The overall effect, which increases over time, is broadly characterized by a negativity for modality-switching compared to not switching. It arises with both types of switch, and influences both participant groups within anterior as well as posterior brain regions. To the extent that this effect spans the time course of lexico-semantic retrieval, it suggests that perceptual simulation contributes fundamentally to the comprehension of words.ReferencesHald, L. A., Marshall, J.-A., Janssen, D. P., & Garnham, A. (2011). Switching modalities in a sentence verification task: ERP evidence for embodied language processing. <i>Frontiers in Psychology, 2.</i> Hauk, O., Coutout, C., Holden, A., & Chen, Y. (2012). The time-course of single-word reading: Evidence from fast behavioral and brain responses. <i>Neuroimage</i>, <i>60</i>, 2, 1462-1477.Mahon, B. Z. (2015). What is embodied about cognition? <i>Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30</i>, 4, 420-429.
DOI: 10.7910/dvn/v1rjpf/7qkari
title: cbb20150623_03.txt.gz

description: :unav
DOI: 10.7910/dvn/v1rjpf/elrour
title: cbb20150501_03.txt.gz

description: :unav
DOI: 10.7910/dvn/v1rjpf/qhqjcc
title: cbb20150617_03.txt.gz

description: :unav
DOI: 10.7910/dvn/v1rjpf/kz6wns
title: cbb20150801_03.txt.gz

description: :unav
DOI: 10.7910/dvn/v1rjpf/neprad
title: cbb20150302_03.txt.gz

description: :unav
DOI: 10.7910/dvn/v1rjpf/uqdwon
title: cbb20151129_03.txt.gz

description: :unav
DOI: 10.7910/dvn/v1rjpf/obxigi
title: cbb20150219_03.txt.gz

description: :unav
DOI: 10.7910/dvn/v1rjpf/ucewst
title: cbb20150113_03.txt.gz

description: :unav
DOI: 10.7910/dvn/v1rjpf/u3pehj
title: cbb20151202_03.txt.gz

description: :unav
DOI: 10.7910/dvn/v1rjpf/8bmegd
title: cbb20151014_03.txt.gz

description: :unav
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.4210863.v66
title: ‘Soundless answer. Firm safety.’ ERPs showing perceptual simulation since actual 160 ms (Bernabeu, Willems, & Louwerse, in prep.)

description: Images: experiment overview; stimuli; EEG montage used; waveforms; difference topographies, critical statistics; fixed effects of final models; entire modeling; raw data. For a detailed view of the waveforms per group and electrode, see https://pablobernabeu.shinyapps.io/export_files/.The entire data set is available at osf.io/97unm.<b>Abstract. </b>The engagement of sensory systems during word comprehension has been extensively documented, but the precise relevance of it is yet 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 successive trials—e.g., haptic then visual—, as enabled by modality-normed stimuli. Switching across trials in different modalities, compared to maintaining a modality, incurs a switching cost. Previous experiments measured this from ERPs time-locked to the second word of target trials, and then from response times. In the current follow-up, we tackled more precisely the time frame of lexical and semantic access by time-locking ERPs to the first word of target trials, which also helped to avoid confound influence on the target word. Next, the experiment featured 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 set between 160 and 750 ms after word onset. The overall effect, which increases over time, is broadly characterized by a negativity for modality-switching compared to not switching. It arises with both types of switch, and influences both participant groups within anterior as well as posterior brain regions. To the extent that this effect spans the time course of lexico-semantic retrieval, it suggests that perceptual simulation contributes fundamentally to the comprehension of words.ReferencesHald, L. A., Marshall, J.-A., Janssen, D. P., & Garnham, A. (2011). Switching modalities in a sentence verification task: ERP evidence for embodied language processing. <i>Frontiers in Psychology, 2.</i> Hauk, O., Coutout, C., Holden, A., & Chen, Y. (2012). The time-course of single-word reading: Evidence from fast behavioral and brain responses. <i>Neuroimage</i>, <i>60</i>, 2, 1462-1477.Mahon, B. Z. (2015). What is embodied about cognition? <i>Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30</i>, 4, 420-429.
DOI: 10.7910/dvn/v1rjpf/d0kluw
title: cbb20151226_03.txt.gz

description: :unav
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.4210863.v67
title: ‘Soundless answer. Firm safety.’ ERPs showing perceptual simulation since actual 160 ms (Bernabeu, Willems, & Louwerse, in prep.)

description: Images: experiment overview; stimuli; EEG montage used; waveforms; difference topographies, critical statistics; fixed effects of final models; entire modeling; raw data. For a detailed view of the waveforms per group and electrode, see https://pablobernabeu.shinyapps.io/export_files/.The entire data set is available at osf.io/97unm.<b>Abstract. </b>The engagement of sensory systems during word comprehension has been extensively documented, but the precise relevance of it is yet 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 successive trials—e.g., haptic then visual—, as enabled by modality-normed stimuli. Switching across trials in different modalities, compared to maintaining a modality, incurs a switching cost. Previous experiments measured this from ERPs time-locked to the second word of target trials, and then from response times. In the current follow-up, we tackled more precisely the time frame of lexical and semantic access by time-locking ERPs to the first word of target trials, which also helped to avoid confound influence on the target word. Next, the experiment featured 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 set between 160 and 750 ms after word onset. The overall effect, which increases over time, is broadly characterized by a negativity for modality-switching compared to not switching. It arises with both types of switch, and influences both participant groups within anterior as well as posterior brain regions. To the extent that this effect spans the time course of lexico-semantic retrieval, it suggests that perceptual simulation contributes fundamentally to the comprehension of words.ReferencesHald, L. A., Marshall, J.-A., Janssen, D. P., & Garnham, A. (2011). Switching modalities in a sentence verification task: ERP evidence for embodied language processing. <i>Frontiers in Psychology, 2.</i> Hauk, O., Coutout, C., Holden, A., & Chen, Y. (2012). The time-course of single-word reading: Evidence from fast behavioral and brain responses. <i>Neuroimage</i>, <i>60</i>, 2, 1462-1477.Mahon, B. Z. (2015). What is embodied about cognition? <i>Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30</i>, 4, 420-429.
DOI: 10.7910/dvn/v1rjpf/y0vjij
title: cbb20151009_03.txt.gz

description: :unav
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.4210863.v68
title: ‘Soundless answer. Firm safety.’ ERPs showing perceptual simulation since actual 160 ms (Bernabeu, Willems, & Louwerse, in prep.)

description: Images: experiment overview; stimuli; EEG montage used; waveforms; difference topographies, critical statistics; fixed effects of final models; entire modeling; raw data. For a detailed view of the waveforms per group and electrode, see https://pablobernabeu.shinyapps.io/export_files/.The entire data set is available at osf.io/97unm.<b>Abstract. </b>The engagement of sensory systems during word comprehension has been extensively documented, but the precise relevance of it is yet 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 successive trials—e.g., haptic then visual—, as enabled by modality-normed stimuli. Switching across trials in different modalities, compared to maintaining a modality, incurs a switching cost. Previous experiments measured this from ERPs time-locked to the second word of target trials, and then from response times. In the current follow-up, we tackled more precisely the time frame of lexical and semantic access by time-locking ERPs to the first word of target trials, which also helped to avoid confound influence on the target word. Next, the experiment featured 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 set between 160 and 750 ms after word onset. The overall effect, which increases over time, is broadly characterized by a negativity for modality-switching compared to not switching. It arises with both types of switch, and influences both participant groups within anterior as well as posterior brain regions. To the extent that this effect spans the time course of lexico-semantic retrieval, it suggests that perceptual simulation contributes fundamentally to the comprehension of words.ReferencesHald, L. A., Marshall, J.-A., Janssen, D. P., & Garnham, A. (2011). Switching modalities in a sentence verification task: ERP evidence for embodied language processing. <i>Frontiers in Psychology, 2.</i> Hauk, O., Coutout, C., Holden, A., & Chen, Y. (2012). The time-course of single-word reading: Evidence from fast behavioral and brain responses. <i>Neuroimage</i>, <i>60</i>, 2, 1462-1477.Mahon, B. Z. (2015). What is embodied about cognition? <i>Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30</i>, 4, 420-429.
DOI: 10.7910/dvn/v1rjpf/i6zvva
title: cbb20150517_03.txt.gz

description: :unav
DOI: 10.7910/dvn/v1rjpf/rpn9vh
title: cbb20150809_03.txt.gz

description: :unav
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.4210863.v69
title: ‘Soundless answer. Firm safety.’ ERPs showing perceptual simulation since actual 160 ms (Bernabeu, Willems, & Louwerse, in prep.)

description: Images: experiment overview; stimuli; EEG montage used; waveforms; difference topographies, critical statistics; fixed effects of final models; entire modeling; raw data. For a detailed view of the waveforms per group and electrode, see https://pablobernabeu.shinyapps.io/export_files/.The entire data set is available at osf.io/97unm.<b>Abstract. </b>The engagement of sensory systems during word comprehension has been extensively documented, but the precise relevance of it is yet 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 successive trials—e.g., haptic then visual—, as enabled by modality-normed stimuli. Switching across trials in different modalities, compared to maintaining a modality, incurs a switching cost. Previous experiments measured this from ERPs time-locked to the second word of target trials, and then from response times. In the current follow-up, we tackled more precisely the time frame of lexical and semantic access by time-locking ERPs to the first word of target trials, which also helped to avoid confound influence on the target word. Next, the experiment featured 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 set between 160 and 750 ms after word onset. The overall effect, which increases over time, is broadly characterized by a negativity for modality-switching compared to not switching. It arises with both types of switch, and influences both participant groups within anterior as well as posterior brain regions. To the extent that this effect spans the time course of lexico-semantic retrieval, it suggests that perceptual simulation contributes fundamentally to the comprehension of words.ReferencesHald, L. A., Marshall, J.-A., Janssen, D. P., & Garnham, A. (2011). Switching modalities in a sentence verification task: ERP evidence for embodied language processing. <i>Frontiers in Psychology, 2.</i> Hauk, O., Coutout, C., Holden, A., & Chen, Y. (2012). The time-course of single-word reading: Evidence from fast behavioral and brain responses. <i>Neuroimage</i>, <i>60</i>, 2, 1462-1477.Mahon, B. Z. (2015). What is embodied about cognition? <i>Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30</i>, 4, 420-429.
DOI: 10.7910/dvn/v1rjpf/yi8umv
title: cbb20151121_03.txt.gz

description: :unav
DOI: 10.7910/dvn/v1rjpf/rv1cvl
title: cbb20150210_03.txt.gz

description: :unav
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.4210863.v70
title: ‘Soundless answer. Firm safety.’ ERPs showing perceptual simulation since actual 160 ms (Bernabeu, Willems, & Louwerse, in prep.)

description: Images: experiment overview; stimuli; EEG montage used; waveforms; difference topographies, critical statistics; fixed effects of final models; entire modeling; raw data. For a detailed view of the waveforms per group and electrode, see https://pablobernabeu.shinyapps.io/export_files/.The entire data set is available at osf.io/97unm.<b>Abstract. </b>The engagement of sensory systems during word comprehension has been extensively documented, but the precise relevance of it is yet 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 successive trials—e.g., haptic then visual—, as enabled by modality-normed stimuli. Switching across trials in different modalities, compared to maintaining a modality, incurs a switching cost. Previous experiments measured this from ERPs time-locked to the second word of target trials, and then from response times. In the current follow-up, we tackled more precisely the time frame of lexical and semantic access by time-locking ERPs to the first word of target trials, which also helped to avoid confound influence on the target word. Next, the experiment featured 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 set between 160 and 750 ms after word onset. The overall effect, which increases over time, is broadly characterized by a negativity for modality-switching compared to not switching. It arises with both types of switch, and influences both participant groups within anterior as well as posterior brain regions. To the extent that this effect spans the time course of lexico-semantic retrieval, it suggests that perceptual simulation contributes fundamentally to the comprehension of words.ReferencesHald, L. A., Marshall, J.-A., Janssen, D. P., & Garnham, A. (2011). Switching modalities in a sentence verification task: ERP evidence for embodied language processing. <i>Frontiers in Psychology, 2.</i> Hauk, O., Coutout, C., Holden, A., & Chen, Y. (2012). The time-course of single-word reading: Evidence from fast behavioral and brain responses. <i>Neuroimage</i>, <i>60</i>, 2, 1462-1477.Mahon, B. Z. (2015). What is embodied about cognition? <i>Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30</i>, 4, 420-429.
DOI: 10.7910/dvn/v1rjpf/aindfu
title: cbb20151124_03.txt.gz

description: :unav