This article was downloaded by: [University Of South Australia Library]On: 11 August 2014, At: 00:48Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Language and Cognitive ProcessesPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/plcp20

The influence of vertical spatialorientation on property verificationMia Šetić a & Dražen Domijan a

a University of Rijeka , Rijeka, CroatiaPublished online: 28 Feb 2007.

To cite this article: Mia Šetić & Dražen Domijan (2007) The influence of vertical spatialorientation on property verification, Language and Cognitive Processes, 22:2, 297-312, DOI:10.1080/01690960600732430

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01690960600732430

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms& Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The influence of vertical spatial orientation on

property verification

Mia Setic and Drazen DomijanUniversity of Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia

According to the spatial registration hypothesis, the representation of stimuluslocation is automatically encoded during perception and it can interact with amore abstract linguistic representation. We tested this hypothesis in twoexperiments, using the semantic judgements of words. In the first experiment,words for animals that either fly or do not fly were presented either in the upperor lower part of a display relative to the fixation point. Reaction times showedsignificant interaction between the spatial position and the word type. Thewords for flying animals were judged faster when they were presented in theupper part while the words for non-flying animals were processed faster in thelower part of the display. In the second experiment we extended the stimulus setto words denoting non-living things which are associated with either upper orlower spatial position. Again, reaction times showed significant interactionbetween the actual spatial position where the words were presented, and theirimplicit association with upper or lower spatial position. The results providesupport for the claim that spatial representation has an active role in lexicalprocessing.

INTRODUCTION

Several theoretical accounts posit that language and abstract thoughts are

closely linked to perceptual representations (Barsalou, 1999; Langacker,

1999; Pulvermuller, 1999). Reactivation of perceptual experiences during

language processing is considered essential for understanding words and

Correspondence should be addressed to Drazen Domijan, Department of Psychology,

Faculty of Philosophy, University of Rijeka, I. Klobucarica 1, HR-51000 Rijeka, Croatia.

E-mail: mia-setic@ffri.hr or ddomijan@ffri.hr

We would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments which

significantly improved this manuscript. Also, our thanks go to Igor Bajsanski for discussion on

the previous version of the manuscript, and to Ines Sirola and Igor Majcen for help in the data

collection.

LANGUAGE AND COGNITIVE PROCESSES

2007, 22 (2), 297�312

# 2006 Psychology Press, an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

http://www.psypress.com/lcp DOI: 10.1080/01690960600732430

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f So

uth

Aus

tral

ia L

ibra

ry]

at 0

0:48

11

Aug

ust 2

014

sentences (Zwaan, 2004). Consequently, properties of the perceptual systems

should be manifested in language. Accumulating evidence from behavioural,

neuropsychological, and brain imaging studies suggests that perception has

an important role in understanding language (Barsalou, 2003; Barsalou,

Simmons, Barbey, & Wilson, 2003; Chatterjee, 2001; Pulvermuller, 2001;

Zwaan, 2004). This is in a contrast with classical or amodal theory of

knowledge representation which rests on the assumption that cognitive

processes could be understood without considering perceptual systems

(Markman & Dietrich, 2000).

In the present article we consider how spatial position might interact with

lexical processing. Coslett (1999) argued that it is of great evolutionary

importance to remember locations in the environment where relevant stimuli

typically occur. Knowing in advance where to find food, or where to watch

for potential threats, increases the chances of survival. Therefore, it is not

surprising to find that a great deal of neural machinery is devoted to the

construction of mental representation of space involving parts of the

temporal, parietal and prefrontal regions at the cortical level and parts of

the basal ganglia and the thalamus at the subcortical level (Chatterjee, 2001).According to the spatial registration hypothesis, information about spatial

location can interact with other cognitive functions such as planning of

actions and language even if it is not directly relevant for the current task

(Coslett, 1999). On this view, links between linguistic representation and

spatial position are established through the deployment of attention over a

spatial map. Attention binds spatial location with abstract symbols by

creating a token or a pointer which specifies the coordinates of a relevant

object. A critical assumption of the spatial registration hypothesis is that the

location token is linked to all processing modules, including sensory, motor

and linguistic ones. When we learn a new word that refers to a certain object,

a symbolic representation (word) of this object is associated with sensory

properties of a given object, including its typical position in space relative to

an observer. The association is formed via the token in the spatial map. A

consequence of the activation of a particular location token is a processing

advantage for all objects or words associated with this token (Coslett, 1999).

Spatial registration is closely related to the concept of word webs put

forward by Pulvermuller (1999, 2001). He suggested that lexical processing

activates a distributed network of neurons (web) in different sensory, motor

and language areas of the cortex, corresponding to the sensory, motor and

linguistic representation of a given concept. For instance, when we hear the

word ‘car’, the network activity spreads to the sensory areas retrieving

sensory properties (shape, colour) of a typical car. The activity also spreads

to motor areas and reactivates typical actions such as when we drive a car.

Word webs are formed by the Hebbian or the correlational learning

298 SETIC AND DOMIJAN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f So

uth

Aus

tral

ia L

ibra

ry]

at 0

0:48

11

Aug

ust 2

014

mechanism which links and coordinates activities in different parts of the

cortex.

When attention mechanisms do not operate properly, the spatial

registration hypothesis predicts that the language function should also beaffected. The evidence for this claim was found in the study of neurological

patients with lesions of the parietal cortex (Coslett, 1999). The parietal

cortex is known to be involved in the construction of spatial representations

and in directing spatial attention (Colby & Goldberg, 1999). However,

patients also showed differences in performance with regard to lexical tasks

(lexical retrieval and semantic search) depending on the location of stimuli in

visual space. Patients with left parietal lesions showed decreased perfor-

mance when their attention was directed to the right visual field, and patientswith right parietal lesions showed decreased performance when their

attention was directed to the left visual field. The conclusion was that

although the parietal cortex is dedicated to the construction of spatial

representation and the deployment of spatial attention, it might influence

lexical processing as well.

It should be noted that Coslett (1999) tested only left�right direction, and

it is an interesting question whether the spatial registration hypothesis could

be generalised to other spatial directions such as orientation toward the topor the bottom of a visual scene, and to neurologically intact participants. The

spatial registration hypothesis suggests that the spatial location should

produce advantage during normal lexical and semantic processing. For

instance, a word should be detected faster when its position in space is

consistent with the typical position of an object to which this word refers.

This effect should occur for all spatial positions (left, right, top, bottom). In

the following paragraphs we review two studies which address these

predictions for the top and the bottom position.In an attempt to test how the spatial position of words might influence

semantic-relatedness judgements, Zwaan and Yaxley (2003b) used word pairs

which denoted objects with a vertical spatial relation to each other (e.g.,

SKY�GROUND, ATTIC�BASEMENT). The words were presented either

in the same spatial arrangement as their referent objects (SKY above

GROUND) or in the opposite arrangement (GROUND above the SKY).

The task was to decide whether two words were semantically related. They

found that participants made faster semantic-relatedness judgements whenthe spatial arrangement of words corresponded with the spatial arrangement

of objects denoted, which they termed the spatial iconicity effect. However,

Zwaan and Yaxley (2003b) were not able to control how attention was

deployed over stimulus display, which is important for activating location

tokens. It is reasonable to expect that participants read the word pairs from

top to bottom. But, it is also possible that we construct our mental

representation of objects in space, starting from top to bottom, when links

SPATIAL ORIENTATION 299

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f So

uth

Aus

tral

ia L

ibra

ry]

at 0

0:48

11

Aug

ust 2

014

between location tokens and words are utilised. Therefore, longer response

times for opposite arrangement may simply reflect a violation of usual

temporal order in retrieving lexical and semantic information based on links

with location tokens. Zwaan and Yaxley (2003b) ruled out this possibility by

showing that the spatial iconicity effect was not observed when word pairs

were presented horizontally. However, the experimental paradigm they

employed does not permit us to tell whether the observed effect is due to

the processing advantage (or disadvantage) in the upper spatial position, the

lower spatial position, or both. In other words, it might be that the observed

effect occurs only with words which refer to objects in upper spatial

locations, or vice versa.

In another study of the interaction between vertical spatial position and

language, Meier and Robinson (2004) used emotionally charged words,

which were presented either in top or bottom positions in the display. The

top or the bottom position was indicated by a set of spatial cues displayed

before the word appeared. Participants were asked to judge the emotional

valence of words (positive vs. negative). The analysis of reaction times

showed that faster responses were made to positive words when they were

shown in the top position compared to the bottom position. Negative words

were processed faster when they were presented in the bottom position. The

results indicate a connection between the affective charge of the words and

the spatial position. This provides support for the claim that social and

emotional information processing is also affected by perceptual systems

(Niedenthal, Barsalou, Winkielman, Krauth-Gruber, & Ric, 2005).

Meier and Robinson’s (2004) paradigm seems more suitable for addres-

sing the issue of interaction between linguistic and spatial representations

because it uses spatial orientation toward the top or the bottom part of the

visual scene, without relying on the relative position of a word. Therefore, it

provides a better control over spatial deployment of attention and allows us

to independently test upper and lower visual fields. Accordingly, we adapted

this procedure in order to assess interaction between the spatial position and

lexical processing. We used words denoting animals which are associated

with the top or the bottom spatial position. We hypothesised that words for

animals that fly will activate the perceptual representation of a typical scene

where the animal denoted is found, which is usually the upper portion of the

visual field (e.g., sky). On the other hand, words for animals that are

typically found on the ground will activate perceptual representation in the

bottom part of the visual scene. These spatial representations should

facilitate processing of words for flying animals at the top of the display

and words for non-flying animals at the bottom of the display.

300 SETIC AND DOMIJAN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f So

uth

Aus

tral

ia L

ibra

ry]

at 0

0:48

11

Aug

ust 2

014

EXPERIMENT 1

Method

Participants. The participants were 47 (41 female and 6 male, age range:19�26) undergraduate students from the Department of Psychology in

Rijeka, Croatia. They all had normal or corrected-to-normal vision and

received course credit for their participation. One female participant was

excluded from the analysis due to the extremely long reaction time (�/2.5

SDs from group latency means) and one male participant was excluded due

to the large number of errors (�/15% in total).

Apparatus. Stimuli were presented using a personal computer Pentium 4

running MS Windows XP with a 17-inch colour monitor. The responses were

collected using the computer keyboard.

Procedure. We followed the procedure of Meier and Robinson (2004)

except for the selected words. They employed words that had positive or

negative emotional valence. Instead, we used words for animals that have

clear spatial orientations toward the top or the bottom part of the visual

scene. The chosen words are listed in the Appendix.Every trial began with a spatial cue (‘�/�/�/’) presented in the centre

of the display for 300 ms. Then, the second spatial cue (‘�/�/�/’) appeared

435 mm either above or below the first cue. Next, the third spatial cue (‘�/�/

�/’) was presented 870 mm apart from the first cue either above or below

the first and the second cue, but always in the same spatial direction as the

second cue. The second and the third spatial cues were both presented for the

duration of 300 ms. After the third cue, the word was presented 1135 mm

either above or below the first cue, centred horizontally, in the same spatial

direction as the second and the third cue. Spatial cues focused attention on

the part of the screen near the position where word would be presented and

they were 100% valid. The words appeared in a yellow font on a blue

background. The task was to decide whether the word presented denoted a

flying or a non-flying animal. The instructions given to the participants

placed equal emphasis on speed and accuracy. If an error was made, the

word ‘INCORRECT’ appeared in a red font for 1.5 s. After a correct

response, a blank screen appeared for 500 ms. The participants were sitting

comfortably at a distance of about 60 cm from the display. The centre of

the display was positioned so as to be at the eye level. There were 16 practice

trials (with words not used in an experimental block) followed by a

single block of 120 trials with every word listed in the Appendix presented

twice (once in the top position and once in the bottom position). The order

of the presentation of words and the choice of their spatial location in the

SPATIAL ORIENTATION 301

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f So

uth

Aus

tral

ia L

ibra

ry]

at 0

0:48

11

Aug

ust 2

014

trial were randomised across the participants. The experimental session was

completed in approximately 10 minutes.

Results and discussion

The alpha level was set to .05 for all significance testing. Error trials were

removed from the analysis (5.1% of the data). Reaction times were then log-

transformed in order to reduce the impact of the extreme values and to

normalise distributions (Ratcliff, 1993). Transformed data was subjected to a

two-way repeated-measure ANOVA with spatial position (top vs. bottom)

and word type (flying animal vs. non-flying animal) as within-subject factors.

Mean reaction times and error rates for word type and spatial position are

displayed in Table 1 (left column). The main effect of spatial position was not

significant (FB/1). The main effect of word type was significant, F(1, 44)�/

33.89, pB/.001, h2P�/.44, showing that words for flying animals were

processed faster (M�/649 ms) than words for non-flying animals (M�/670

ms). The Spatial position�/Word type interaction was significant F(1, 44)�/

16.24, pB/.001, h2P�/.27. Duncan’s post-hoc test revealed that words for

flying animals were processed significantly faster when they were presented

in the top position (M�/642 ms), compared with the bottom position

(M�/ 655 ms), p�/.004. On the other hand, words for non-flying animals

were processed significantly faster when they were presented at the bottom

position (M�/664 ms) compared with the top position (M�/676 ms),

p�/.010. The same analysis was performed on untransformed error rates.

The main effect of the spatial position was not significant nor was the

interaction between spatial position and word type (FsB/1). The main effect

of word type was significant, F(1, 44)�/5.55, p�/.023, h2P�/.11; indicating

that more errors were made during the evaluation of words for flying animals

TABLE 1Mean reaction times (RTs; in milliseconds) and error rates (ERs; in percentages) for

word type and spatial position in Experiment 1

Participants Items

Items (after adjustment for

valence)

Word type Word type Word type

Spatial position Fly Non-fly Fly Non-fly Fly Non-fly

RT Top 642 (11.3) 676 (12.7) 645 (8.0) 677 (8.4) 646 (8.0) 676 (8.4)

Bottom 655 (12.3) 664 (12.5) 658 (9.4) 665 (9.5) 659 (9.5) 664 (9.5)

ER Top 5.3 (0.7) 4.4 (0.7) 5.3 (0.9) 4.3 (0.9) 5.4 (0.9) 4.2 (0.9)

Bottom 6.6 (0.8) 4.4 (0.7) 6.6 (1.1) 4.4 (1.1) 6.6 (1.1) 4.4 (1.1)

Note . Standard errors are in parentheses.

302 SETIC AND DOMIJAN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f So

uth

Aus

tral

ia L

ibra

ry]

at 0

0:48

11

Aug

ust 2

014

(M�/ 6%) than words for non-flying animals (M�/ 4.4%). A possible

explanation for this speed-accuracy tradeoff is that the property to be

verified (flying) is strongly associated with the set of words for flying animals

which may lower firing thresholds for their corresponding nodes in lexicalrepresentation. This may induce participants to respond faster and to be

more confident as well as leading them to make more errors.

We also perform an item-level analysis with the word type as a between-

item factor and the spatial position as a within-item factor in a mixed two-

way ANOVA (see Table 1, middle column, for descriptive statistics). The

main effect of word type was not significant, F(1, 58)�/2.89, p�/ .095; as well

as the main effect of spatial position (FB/1). The interaction Word type�/

Spatial position was significant, F(1, 58)�/9.66, p�/ .003, /h2P�/.15. Duncan’s

post-hoc test revealed that the words for flying animals were processed

significantly faster when they were presented in the top position (M�/ 645

ms), compared with the bottom position (M�/ 658 ms), p�/ .024. On the

other hand, words for non-flying animals were processed significantly faster

when they were presented at the bottom position (M�/665 ms) compared

with the top position (M�/ 677 ms), p�/ .043. The analysis of error rates

showed that there were no significant main effects nor was there interaction

(all FsB/2).Although the current findings lend support to the claim that spatial

representation influences lexical processing, there is another possibility.

Taking into account the results of Meier and Robinson’s (2004) study, it is

possible that the observed interaction between the spatial position and the

word type could be interpreted as a consequence of a valence of words. That

is, words for flying animals may have more positive valence compared with

non-flying animals, leading to shorter reaction times for words for flying

animals in the upper spatial position compared with the bottom position.Negative valence of the non-flying words may induce an opposite pattern of

reaction times for their presentation in top and bottom spatial positions.

Therefore, we conducted the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with word

type as a between-item factor, spatial position as a within-item factor, and

treating the valence as a covariate (see Table 1, right column, for descriptive

statistics). The valence of the words was rated by a group of 30 participants

on a Likert nine-point scale (1 � very negative; 9 � very positive). Mean

valence was computed and used in the analysis. The main effect of word typewas not significant F(1, 57)�/2.28, p�/.14; as well as the main effect of

spatial position (FB/1). The interaction between word type and spatial

position remains significant F(1, 57)�/ 9.45, p�/ .003, h2P�/ .14. Just like

before, Duncan’s post-hoc test showed that words for flying animals were

processed significantly faster when they were presented at the top position

(M�/646 ms) compared with the bottom position (M�/ 659 ms), p�/ .025.

The responses to words for non-flying animals remained significantly faster

SPATIAL ORIENTATION 303

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f So

uth

Aus

tral

ia L

ibra

ry]

at 0

0:48

11

Aug

ust 2

014

when they were presented at the bottom position (M�/ 664 ms) compared

with the top position (M�/ 676 ms), p�/.045. The interaction between the

spatial position and the valence was not significant (FB/1) indicating that

their effects on reaction times were independent. All effects remained non-significant in ANCOVA for error rates. We conclude that our findings were

not the by-product of the valence of the words.

In Experiment 1 we showed that the spatial position of a presented word

influences the speed of property verification. This provides support for the

spatial registration hypothesis which states that directing attention to the

part of the visual space where we usually observe certain objects should

produce processing advantage even for words denoting them. However, as

described below, the differences in reaction times could be explained by theproperties of the categorisation task itself. In order to separate the influence

of the spatial position from the influence of the categorisation task we

conducted Experiment 2.

EXPERIMENT 2

A potential concern with Experiment 1 is that the categorisation labels used

in the experimental task are associated with the spatial position. Namely, the

category label of ‘flying’ is physically linked to an upper vertical position. In

other words, to ‘fly’ one must be ‘up’. Therefore, participants may respond

faster to words for flying animals when they appear at the top positionsimply because there is a link between the category ‘flying’ and the top

spatial position. Following a suggestion made by a reviewer, we conducted

Experiment 2 using words for animals and for non-living things. The

procedure was the same as in the previous experiment except that the task

was to decide whether the presented word was a living or a non-living entity.

Categories ‘living’ and ‘non-living’ are not associated with physical location

like the category ‘flying’.

Method

Participants. The participants were 45 (42 female and 3 male, age range:

19�25) undergraduate students from the Department of Psychology in

Rijeka, Croatia. They all had normal or corrected-to-normal vision andreceived course credit for their participation. Most of them participated in

Experiment 1. This raises a concern that they were not naive with respect to

the hypothesis of the study. Although the participants were debriefed after

they completed Experiment 1 we believe that they have not formed an

expectation that implicit spatial orientation of words is being tested again,

because the categorisation task used in Experiment 2 was different. Namely,

the categorisation of words as referring to living or non-living entities does

304 SETIC AND DOMIJAN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f So

uth

Aus

tral

ia L

ibra

ry]

at 0

0:48

11

Aug

ust 2

014

not imply spatial orientation of words just like in the categorisation task used

in Experiment 1.

Apparatus. Stimuli were presented using a personal computer Pentium 4

running MS Windows XP with a 17-inch colour monitor. The responses were

collected using the computer keyboard.

Procedure. The procedure was the same as in Experiment 1 except forthe selected words and the task. The task was to decide whether the

presented word denotes a living or a non-living entity. Words for living

beings were the words for animals used in Experiment 1. Due to the fact that

most of the participants were familiar with these words they were treated as

filler items. Words for non-living entities were selected based on their

association with the upper or the lower part of the visual field. We refer to

them as top words (i.e., words which denote objects usually observed at the

top position) and bottom words (i.e., words which denote objects usually

observed at the bottom position). The chosen words are listed in the

Appendix. There were 24 practice trials (with the words not used in an

experimental block) followed by a single block of 160 trials with every word

listed in the Appendix presented twice (once in the top position and once in

the bottom position). The order of the presentation of words and the choice

of their spatial location in the trial were randomised between

the participants. The experimental session was completed in approximately

10 min.

Results and discussion

Error trials were removed from the analysis (3.9% of the data). Due to the

fact that the same participants completed Experiment 1 and Experiment 2,

we treated words for animals as filler items and excluded them from the

analysis. The reaction times for non-living entities were then log-transformed

and subjected to a two-way repeated-measure ANOVA with spatial position

(top vs. bottom) and word type (top object vs. bottom object) as within-

subject factors. Mean reaction times and error rates for word type and spatial

position are displayed in Table 2 (left column). The main effect of spatial

position was not significant (FB/1). The main effect of word type was

significant, F(1, 44)�/17.18, pB/.001, h2P�/.28, showing that words for

bottom objects were processed faster (M�/607 ms) than words for top

objects (M�/ 621 ms). The Spatial position�/Word type interaction was

significant F(1, 44)�/19.53, pB/.001, h2P�/.30. Duncan’s post-hoc test

revealed that words for top objects were processed significantly faster

when they were presented in the top position (M�/ 614 ms) compared with

the bottom position (M�/ 627 ms), p�/.005. On the other hand, words for

SPATIAL ORIENTATION 305

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f So

uth

Aus

tral

ia L

ibra

ry]

at 0

0:48

11

Aug

ust 2

014

bottom objects were processed significantly faster when they were presented

in the bottom position (M�/ 600 ms) compared with the top position

(M�/ 614 ms), p�/.002. The same analysis was performed on untransformed

error rates. The main effect of spatial position was not significant, F(1, 44)�/

2.83, p�/.100; nor was the interaction between spatial position and word

type, FB/1. The main effect of word type was significant, F(1, 44)�/4.76,

p�/.035, h2P�/.10; indicating that more errors were made during the

evaluation of words for top objects (M�/ 4.7%) than words for bottom

objects (M�/ 3.2%). This pattern of error rates is consistent with the results

for reaction times.

The item-level analysis was performed with word type as a between-item

factor and spatial position as a within-item factor in a mixed two-way

ANOVA (see Table 2, middle column, for descriptive statistics). The main

effect of word type was not significant, F(1, 38)�/2.41, p�/.129; as well as the

main effect of spatial position, FB/1. The interaction Word type�/Spatial

position was significant, F(1, 38)�/10.60, p�/.002, h2P�/.22. Duncan’s post-

hoc test revealed that words for top objects were processed significantly

faster when they were presented in the top position (M�/616 ms) compared

with the bottom position (M�/628 ms), p�/.031. On the other hand, the

words for bottom objects were processed significantly faster when they were

presented in the bottom position (M�/602 ms) compared with the top

position (M�/ 615 ms), p�/.024. The analysis of error rates showed that

there were no significant main effects of spatial position, F(1, 38)�/3.73,

p�/.061, and word type, F(1, 38)�/2.46, p�/.125. The interaction between

spatial position and word type was also nonsignificant, FB/1.

As in Experiment 1, we conducted ANCOVA with word type as a

between-item factor, spatial position as a within-item factor, and treating the

valence as a covariate (see Table 1, right column, for descriptive statistics).

TABLE 2Mean reaction times (RTs; in milliseconds) and error rates (ERs; in percentages) for

word type and spatial position in Experiment 2

Participants Items

Items (after adjustment

for valence)

Word type Word type Word type

Spatial position Top Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom

RT Top 614 (9.2) 614 (9.5) 616 (5.6) 615 (5.6) 614 (6.3) 617 (6.3)

Bottom 627 (9.6) 600 (9.3) 628 (8.0) 602 (7.6) 626 (8.9) 605 (8.6)

ER Top 3.8 (0.8) 2.9 (0.7) 3.8 (0.8) 2.9 (0.8) 4.0 (0.9) 2.7 (0.9)

Bottom 5.6 (1.2) 3.6 (0.8) 5.6 (0.8) 3.6 (0.8) 5.1 (0.9) 4.0 (0.9)

Note . Standard errors are in parentheses.

306 SETIC AND DOMIJAN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f So

uth

Aus

tral

ia L

ibra

ry]

at 0

0:48

11

Aug

ust 2

014

The valence of the words was rated by a group of 34 participants on a Likert

nine-point scale (1 � very negative; 9 � very positive). Mean valence was

computed and used in the analysis. The main effect of word type was not

significant, as well as the main effect of spatial position (both FsB/1). The

interaction between word type and spatial position remained significant,

F(1, 37)�/6.54, p�/.015, h2P�/.15. As before, Duncan’s post-hoc test revealed

that words for top objects were processed significantly faster when they were

presented in the top position (M�/ 614 ms) compared to the bottom position

(M�/ 626 ms), p�/.033. The words for bottom objects were processed

significantly faster when they were presented in the bottom position

(M�/ 605 ms) compared to the top position (M�/ 617 ms), p�/.026. The

interaction between spatial position and the valence was not significant

(FB/1) indicating that their effects on reaction times were independent. All

effects remained non-significant in ANCOVA for error rates (all FsB/2).

In Experiment 2 we replicated the pattern of results from Experiment 1.

The words with implicit association with the top spatial position were

processed faster when they were actually presented in the top position

compared to their presentation in the bottom position. Conversely, the words

with implicit association with the bottom position were processed faster

when they were presented in the bottom position compared to the top

position. This is achieved without the confound present in the Experiment 1

because the categorisation task was not directly related to the spatial

position. Namely, category labels of ‘living’ and ‘non-living’ things are not

related to the top and the bottom spatial position.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

Using the paradigm of Meier and Robinson (2004) we showed that spatial

position influences lexical processing. In Experiment 1 the task was to verify

whether a given word denoted a flying or a non-flying animal. Words were

presented either in the top or the bottom position relative to the centre of the

screen. Words for flying animals were processed faster when they were

presented at the top position while words denoting non-flying animals were

processed faster at the bottom. The results are closely related to a spatial

Stroop effect where the meaning of the words interferes with the location

where they appear (Lu & Proctor, 1995; MacLeod, 1991). In the spatial

Stroop task, words are used whose meaning is directly related to orientation

in space (i.e., ABOVE�BELOW, LEFT�RIGHT). For instance, the word

LEFT is detected faster when presented in the left side of the display relative

to the fixation point compared with a right side presentation. As in the

studies of Zwaan and Yaxley (2003b) and Meier and Robinson (2004) we

used words which do not make explicit reference to spatial locations but still

SPATIAL ORIENTATION 307

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f So

uth

Aus

tral

ia L

ibra

ry]

at 0

0:48

11

Aug

ust 2

014

have implied spatial orientation thus producing interference during task

completion. We also verified that present result is not due to the valence of

the words since the effect holds after we statistically controlled for valence in

ANCOVA. Therefore, the results observed in the present study do not reduce

to the effect of valence reported by Meier and Robinson (2004). It should be

noted, however, that neither study permits us to distinguish whether results

should be attributed to the interference due to the conflicting information or

to facilitation due to the consistent information. The problem is that there is

no control condition which could distinguish these variables. Kaschak et al.

(2005) provide further discussion on this issue.

In Experiment 2 we verified that the spatial influences observed in

Experiment 1 are not due to the properties of the categorisation task. We

employed words for living and non-living entities that are either associated

with the top or the bottom spatial position. The task was to decide whether a

presented word denotes a living or a non-living entity. The interaction

between word type and spatial position was still present (across participants

and items). The words with implicit association with the upper spatial

location (e.g., sun, moon, aircraft, and roof) were processed faster when

presented in the top position, compared with the bottom position. The words

associated with the lower spatial position (e.g., stream, road, basement, and

shoe) were processed faster when presented in the bottom position,

compared with the top position. In Experiment 2, words for animals were

treated as filler items. We also verified that the observed results are not the

consequence of the valence of words since the effects remained after we

statistically controlled for the valence in ANCOVA.

Amodal vs. modal explanation

According to Zwaan and Yaxley (2003b) the influence of spatial position on

lexical processing could be interpreted in two ways depending on the

assumptions about the representational format used in lexical processing.

The first interpretation is derived from classical (or amodal) theory of

conceptual representation in which nodes in a semantic network compete to

reach the activation threshold and constitute the semantic interpretation of

the input. We may assume that the nodes for every word are associated with

the nodes for concepts of the spatial position (TOP or BOTTOM) depending

on the typical position of the concepts these words denote. For instance, a

node for EAGLE would be associated with the concept TOP since eagles are

typically observed in the sky. On the other hand, MOUSE would be

associated with the concept BOTTOM. During on-line processing of words

their spatial position is also registered. When registered spatial position is in

conflict with spatial position retrieved from memory, the response to a given

pair of words is prolonged.

308 SETIC AND DOMIJAN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f So

uth

Aus

tral

ia L

ibra

ry]

at 0

0:48

11

Aug

ust 2

014

The second interpretation is based on a theory of perceptual simulations

(or modal theory), which posits that perceptual representations are activated

during lexical processing (Barsalou, 1999). In this case, we can assume that

the spatial position is registered during lexical learning and becomes a partof the representation of the concept learned. Facilitation or interference is

explained as a consequence of a match or mismatch between the spatial

position of the presented words and their learned typical position. When a

word denoting a flying animal is presented, the upper portion of the visual

field is activated because flying animals are typically found in the sky. If the

word is presented in the top position its evaluation should be facilitated due

to the match between registered position and learned position. On the other

hand, if the word is presented in the bottom position there would be amismatch between perceptual and learned representation which delays the

response. The same processes are also evident for non-flying animals but in

the opposite spatial direction.

Mental scanning

An important aspect of Zwaan and Yaxley’s (2003b) study is the fact that

word pairs are read from top to bottom and this temporal order may

interfere with the spatial manipulation in the experimental task. They were

not able to completely exclude the possibility that the results are a

consequence of mental scanning of the perceptual representation from top

to bottom. In the present experiment this problem is avoided by presenting asingle word during a trial while the spatial position is manipulated

independently for each word. Mental scanning is not relevant here because

attention is deliberately relocated between top and bottom positions by a set

of cues. Furthermore, we were able to separate the effects of top and bottom

spatial positions while they are merged in the Zwaan and Yaxley’s (2003b)

study. Therefore, our results provide a stronger argument for spatial effects

on lexical processing and for the role in it of perceptual representation.

Strategies for solving the property verification task

Relevant to the present experiment is an issue of controlling a word’s

associative strength. Solomon and Barsalou (2004) argued that in a property

verification task participants were able to adopt different strategies depend-ing on the properties of the task (e.g., task difficulty). While they might use

perceptual simulation, in some cases it is possible to solve the task by

attending to word association between concept and property. We did not

control word association strength directly but features of the task used

allowed us to set these strategies apart. In Experiment 1, the property that is

tested (does the animal fly) is highly associated with one group (flying

animals) but not with the other group (non-flying animals). However, the

SPATIAL ORIENTATION 309

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f So

uth

Aus

tral

ia L

ibra

ry]

at 0

0:48

11

Aug

ust 2

014

spatial position affects both sets of words indicating that participants really

used perceptual simulation and were not just relying on associative strength.

If they were using word association strategy solely it would be manifested in

the main effect of word type and lack of interaction. Although the main

effect of the word type for response times was significant it was accompanied

by the main effect of the word type in error rates indicating a speed-accuracy

trade-off. Also it should be noted that the main effect of word type was

present in the analysis by participants only. The significant interaction

between word type and the spatial position (in the analysis by participants

and by items) points to the use of perceptual simulation. In Experiment 2,

there was no such asymmetry in association strength between words used

and property that is being tested. The main effect of word type was

significant with shorter reaction times for words for bottom objects.

However, it was present in the analysis by participants only. More important

is that we also observed the interaction between word type and spatial

position (in the analysis by participants and by items) which suggests that the

participants tried to use perceptual simulation in order to solve the task.

CONCLUSION

Irrespective of the assumptions about representational format used in lexical

processing, the present results along with the studies of Zwaan and Yaxley

(2003a, 2003b) provide additional support for the spatial registration

hypothesis which states that during our daily encounter with the environ-

ment, the spatial position of objects is automatically encoded even if it is not

necessary (Coslett, 1999). The spatial localisation is of such evolutionary

importance that it is remembered for all encountered objects. Moreover,

memorised spatial information is linked to other cognitive functions and it

could influence language processing and action planning. This hypothesis is

based on evidence from patients with damage of the parietal cortex. Besides

well known deficits in visual spatial orientation some of these patients also

show deficits in lexical access and semantic search which should not occur if

language and space representations are separated. These results, combined

with studies on comprehension of verbs (Chatterjee, Southwood, & Basilico,

1999; Richardson, Spivey, Barsalou, & McRae, 2003) and whole sentences

(Chatterjee, Maher, Gonzalez Rothi, & Heilman, 1995; Stanfield & Zwaan,

2001), are consistent with the suggestion that language and space interact in

important ways (Chatterjee, 2001).

Manuscript received October 2005

Revised manuscript received March 2006

310 SETIC AND DOMIJAN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f So

uth

Aus

tral

ia L

ibra

ry]

at 0

0:48

11

Aug

ust 2

014

REFERENCES

Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577�660.

Barsalou, L. W. (2003). Situated simulation in the human conceptual system. Language and

Cognitive Processes, 18, 513�562.

Barsalou, L. W., Simmons, W. K., Barbey, A. K., & Wilson, C. D. (2003). Grounding conceptual

knowledge in modality-specific systems. Trends in Cognitive Science, 7, 84�91.

Chatterjee, A. (2001). Language and space: Some interactions. Trends in Cognitive Science, 5, 55�61.

Chatterjee, A., Maher, L. M., Gonzalez Rothi, L. J., & Heilman, K. M. (1995). Asyntactic thematic

role assignment: The use of a temporal-spatial strategy. Brain and Language, 49, 125�139.

Chatterjee, A., Southwood, M. H., & Basilico, D. (1999). Verbs, events and spatial representations.

Neuropsychologia, 37, 395�402.

Colby, C. L., & Golberg, M. E. (1999). Space and attention in parietal cortex. Annual Review of

Neuroscience, 22, 319�349.

Coslett, H. B. (1999). Spatial influences on motor and language function. Neuropsychologia, 37,

695�706.

Kaschak, M. P., Madden, C. J., Therriault, D. J., Yaxley, R. H., Aveyard, M., Blanchard, A. A., &

Zwaan, R. A. (2005). Perception of motion affects language processing. Cognition, 94, 79�89.

Langacker, R. W. (1999). On subjectification and grammaticization. In J. P. Koenig (Ed.), Discourse

and cognition: Bridging the gap (pp. 71�89). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.

Lu, C. H., & Proctor, R. W. (1995). The influence of irrelevant location information on

performance: A review of the Simon and spatial Stroop effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,

5, 174�207.

MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review.

Psychological Bulletin, 109, 163�203.

Markman, A. B., & Dietrich, E. (2000). Extending the classical view of representation. Trends in

Cognitive Sciences, 4, 470�475.

Meier, B. P., & Robinson, M. D. (2004). Why the sunny side is up: Associations between affect and

vertical position. Psychological Science, 15, 243�247.

Niedenthal, P. M., Barsalou, L. W., Winkielman, P., Krauth-Gruber, S., & Ric, F. (2005).

Embodiment in attitudes, social perception, and emotion. Personality and Social Psychology

Review, 9, 184�211.

Pulvermuller, F. (1999). Words in the brain’s language. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 253�336.

Pulvermuller, F. (2001). Brain reflections of words and their meaning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,

5, 517�524.

Ratcliff, R. (1993). Methods for dealing with reaction time outliers. Psychological Bulletin, 114,

510�532.

Richardson, D. C., Spivey, M. J., Barsalou, L. W., & McRae, K. (2003). Spatial representations

activated during real-time comprehension of verbs. Cognitive Science, 27, 767�780.

Solomon, K. O., & Barsalou, L. W. (2004). Perceptual simulation in property verification. Memory

& Cognition, 32, 244�259.

Stanfield, R. A., & Zwaan, R. A. (2001). The effect of implied orientation derived from verbal

context on picture recognition. Psychological Science, 12, 153�156.

Zwaan, R. A. (2004). The immersed experiencer: Toward an embodied theory of language

comprehension. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 35�62).

New York: Academic Press.

Zwaan, R. A., & Yaxley, R. H. (2003a). Hemispheric differences in semantic-relatedness judgments.

Cognition, 87, B79�B86.

Zwaan, R. A., & Yaxley, R. H. (2003b). Spatial iconicity affects semantic relatedness judgements.

Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 10, 954�958.

SPATIAL ORIENTATION 311

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f So

uth

Aus

tral

ia L

ibra

ry]

at 0

0:48

11

Aug

ust 2

014

APPENDIX

Experiment 1

The words were selected based on a pilot study in which participants rated the

strength (or clarity) of a word’s spatial orientation toward the top or the bottom

positions on a Likert five-point scale. Participants were asked to imagine a given

animal and to rate where they usually observe it in the space. We used five-point scale,

where 1 indicates the lowest position and 5 indicates the highest position in space. In

Croatian language all the nouns presented were single words with a length of between

3 and 9 letters. There was no difference in word length between flying and non-flying

animals (t B/1). Words for non-flying animals were chosen so as to minimise the

difference in average size with respect to flying animals and to enhance their spatial

orientation toward the bottom. Therefore, we excluded large animals such as

elephant, horse, giraffe, and so on.The words for flying animals were as follows: fly, bumble bee, wasp, honeybee,

mosquito, butterfly, bat, eagle, hornet, swallow, crow, sea-gull, raven, albatross, hawk,

pigeon, bulbul, stork, sparrow, blackbird, woodpecker, condor, vulture, owl, heron,

turtle-dove, falcon, finch, little owl, and crane.The words for non-flying animals were as follows: snake, earthworm, worm, snail,

lizard, caterpillar, crab, scorpion, cockroach, mouse, rat, mole, hamster, rabbit,

hedgehog, ant, iguana, fish, badger, guinea pig, marten, weasel, skunk, racoon,

beaver, turtle, termite, fox, cat, and squid.

Experiment 2

As in Experiment 1, the words were selected based on a pilot study in which the

participants rated the strength (or clarity) of word’s spatial orientation toward the top

or the bottom positions on a Likert five-point scale. In Croatian language all the

nouns presented were single words with the length of between 3 and 10 letters. There

was no difference in word length between words for top and bottom objects (t B/1).

The words for animals were taken from the list for Experiment 1. The words for non-

living things with implicit association to top position (i.e., top words) were as follows:

sky, rainbow, sun, moon, cloud, aircraft, helicopter, tower, hanging lamp, bell-tower,

ski jump, halo, attic, ceiling, roof, satellite, meteor, chimney, peak, and aerial.The words for non-living things with implicit association to bottom position (i.e.,

bottom words) were as follows: asphalt, channel, carpet, parquet, puddle, submarine,

pit, stream, door-mat, road, floor, basement, wheel, abyss, ground, shoe, mud,

sidewalk, pathway, and railway.The words for flying animals were as follows: fly wasp, honeybee, butterfly, bat,

eagle, hornet, swallow, crow, sea-gull, raven, albatross, hawk, bulbul, stork, blackbird,

condor, vulture, owl, and falcon.The words for non-flying animals were as follows: snake, earthworm, worm, snail,

lizard, caterpillar, crab, scorpion, mouse, mole, hamster, rabbit, hedgehog, ant,

badger, guinea pig, skunk, racoon, beaver, and cat.

312 SETIC AND DOMIJAN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f So

uth

Aus

tral

ia L

ibra

ry]

at 0

0:48

11

Aug

ust 2

014