Veronica Diveica, Emiko J Muraki, Richard J Binney, Penny M Pexman
{"title":"对比具体和抽象词义的组织。","authors":"Veronica Diveica, Emiko J Muraki, Richard J Binney, Penny M Pexman","doi":"10.3758/s13423-025-02671-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Concepts have traditionally been categorized as either concrete (e.g., ROSE) or abstract (e.g., ROMANCE) based on whether they have a direct connection to external sensory experience or not. However, there is growing consensus that these conceptual categories differ in their reliance on various additional sources of semantic information, such as motor, affective, social, and linguistic experiences, and this is reflected in systematic differences in the semantic properties that typically contribute to their informational content. However, it remains unclear whether concrete and abstract concepts also differ in how their constituent semantic properties relate to one another. To explore this, we compared the organization of 15 semantic dimensions underlying concrete and abstract concept knowledge using data-driven network analyses. We found striking differences in both (1) the centrality of conceptual properties and (2) their pairwise partial correlations. Distinct sensorimotor dimensions emerged as pivotal in organizing each concept type: haptic information for concrete concepts, and interoception and mouth action for abstract concepts. Social content was higher in abstract concepts. However, it played a more central role in structuring concrete meanings, suggesting distinct contributions of social experience to each concept type. Age of acquisition was related exclusively to dimensions quantifying sensorimotor and affective experiences, with sensorimotor properties supporting the acquisition of concrete concepts and affective properties contributing more to the acquisition of abstract concepts. Overall, our findings offer novel insights into the interplay between the diverse sources of semantic information proposed by multiple representation theories in shaping both abstract and concrete concept knowledge.</p>","PeriodicalId":20763,"journal":{"name":"Psychonomic Bulletin & Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Contrasting the organization of concrete and abstract word meanings.\",\"authors\":\"Veronica Diveica, Emiko J Muraki, Richard J Binney, Penny M Pexman\",\"doi\":\"10.3758/s13423-025-02671-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Concepts have traditionally been categorized as either concrete (e.g., ROSE) or abstract (e.g., ROMANCE) based on whether they have a direct connection to external sensory experience or not. However, there is growing consensus that these conceptual categories differ in their reliance on various additional sources of semantic information, such as motor, affective, social, and linguistic experiences, and this is reflected in systematic differences in the semantic properties that typically contribute to their informational content. However, it remains unclear whether concrete and abstract concepts also differ in how their constituent semantic properties relate to one another. To explore this, we compared the organization of 15 semantic dimensions underlying concrete and abstract concept knowledge using data-driven network analyses. We found striking differences in both (1) the centrality of conceptual properties and (2) their pairwise partial correlations. Distinct sensorimotor dimensions emerged as pivotal in organizing each concept type: haptic information for concrete concepts, and interoception and mouth action for abstract concepts. Social content was higher in abstract concepts. However, it played a more central role in structuring concrete meanings, suggesting distinct contributions of social experience to each concept type. Age of acquisition was related exclusively to dimensions quantifying sensorimotor and affective experiences, with sensorimotor properties supporting the acquisition of concrete concepts and affective properties contributing more to the acquisition of abstract concepts. Overall, our findings offer novel insights into the interplay between the diverse sources of semantic information proposed by multiple representation theories in shaping both abstract and concrete concept knowledge.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20763,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychonomic Bulletin & Review\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychonomic Bulletin & Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-025-02671-z\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychonomic Bulletin & Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-025-02671-z","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Contrasting the organization of concrete and abstract word meanings.
Concepts have traditionally been categorized as either concrete (e.g., ROSE) or abstract (e.g., ROMANCE) based on whether they have a direct connection to external sensory experience or not. However, there is growing consensus that these conceptual categories differ in their reliance on various additional sources of semantic information, such as motor, affective, social, and linguistic experiences, and this is reflected in systematic differences in the semantic properties that typically contribute to their informational content. However, it remains unclear whether concrete and abstract concepts also differ in how their constituent semantic properties relate to one another. To explore this, we compared the organization of 15 semantic dimensions underlying concrete and abstract concept knowledge using data-driven network analyses. We found striking differences in both (1) the centrality of conceptual properties and (2) their pairwise partial correlations. Distinct sensorimotor dimensions emerged as pivotal in organizing each concept type: haptic information for concrete concepts, and interoception and mouth action for abstract concepts. Social content was higher in abstract concepts. However, it played a more central role in structuring concrete meanings, suggesting distinct contributions of social experience to each concept type. Age of acquisition was related exclusively to dimensions quantifying sensorimotor and affective experiences, with sensorimotor properties supporting the acquisition of concrete concepts and affective properties contributing more to the acquisition of abstract concepts. Overall, our findings offer novel insights into the interplay between the diverse sources of semantic information proposed by multiple representation theories in shaping both abstract and concrete concept knowledge.
期刊介绍:
The journal provides coverage spanning a broad spectrum of topics in all areas of experimental psychology. The journal is primarily dedicated to the publication of theory and review articles and brief reports of outstanding experimental work. Areas of coverage include cognitive psychology broadly construed, including but not limited to action, perception, & attention, language, learning & memory, reasoning & decision making, and social cognition. We welcome submissions that approach these issues from a variety of perspectives such as behavioral measurements, comparative psychology, development, evolutionary psychology, genetics, neuroscience, and quantitative/computational modeling. We particularly encourage integrative research that crosses traditional content and methodological boundaries.