Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Barsalou, Lawrence W. (2017)
Publisher: Taylor and Francis
Languages: English
Types: Article
This is a commentary on Kemmerer (2016), Categories of Object Concepts Across Languages and Brains: The Relevance of Nominal Classification Systems to Cognitive Neuroscience, DOI: 10.1080/23273798.2016.1198819.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Andrews, M., Frank, S., & Vigliocco, G. (2014). Reconciling Embodied and Distributional Accounts of Meaning in Language. Topics in Cognitive Science, 6(3), 359-370.
    • Baroni, M., & Lenci, A. (2010). Distributional Memory: A General Framework for Corpus-Based Semantics. Computational Linguistics, 36(4), 673-721.
    • Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577-660.
    • Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617-645.
    • Barsalou, L. W. (2016). On staying grounded and avoiding Quixotic dead ends. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1-21.
    • Barsalou, L. W., & Ross, B. H. (1986). The roles of automatic and strategic processing in sensitivity to superordinate and property frequency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12(1), 116-134.
    • Barsalou, L. W., Santos, A., Simmons, W. K., & Wilson, C. D. (2008). Language and simulation in conceptual processing. In M. De Vega, A. M. Glenberg, & A. C. Graesser, Symbols, embodiment, and meaning (pp. 245-283). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    • Barsalou, L. W., & Wiemer-Hastings, K. (2005). Situating abstract concepts. In D. Pecher & R. A. Zwaan (pp. 129-163). New York: Cambridge University Press.
    • Binder, J. R. (2016). In defense of abstract conceptual representations. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.
    • Casasanto, D., & Lupyan, G. (2015). All concepts rre ad hoc concepts. In E. Margolis & S. Laurence, The conceptual mind: New directions in the study of concepts (pp. 543-566). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    • Connell, L., & Lynott, D. (2013). Flexible and fast: Linguistic shortcut affects both shallow and deep conceptual processing. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20(3), 542-550.
    • Connell, L., & Lynott, D. (2014). Principles of Representation: Why You Can't Represent the Same Concept Twice. Topics in Cognitive Science, 6(3), 390-406.
    • Corbetta, M., Miezin, F. M., Dobmeyer, S., Shulman, G. L., & Petersen, S. E. (1991). Selective and divided attention during visual discriminations of shape, color, and speed: functional anatomy by positron emission tomography. The Journal of Neuroscience, 11(8), 2383-2402.
    • Craik, F. I. M. (2002). Levels of processing: Past, present... and future? Memory, 10(5-6), 305-318.
    • Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11(6), 671-684.
    • Elman, J. L., Bates, E. A., Johnson, M. H., Karmiloff-Smith, A., Parisi, D., & Plunkett, K. (1996). Rethinking innateness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    • Enfield, N. J. (2015). Linguistic Relativity from Reference to Agency. Annual Review of Anthropology, 44(1), 207-224.
    • Erk, K. (2012). Vector Space Models of Word Meaning and Phrase Meaning: A Survey. Language and Linguistics Compass, 6(10), 635-653.
    • Everett, C. (2013). Linguistic Relativity: Evidence Across Languages and Cognitive Domains. Walter de Gruyter.
    • Fernandino, L., Binder, J. R., Desai, R. H., Pendl, S. L., Humphries, C. J., Gross, W. L., … Seidenberg, M. S. (2015). Concept Representation Reflects Multimodal Abstraction: A Framework for Embodied Semantics. Cerebral Cortex.
    • Huettig, F., Rommers, J., & Meyer, A. S. (2011). Using the visual world paradigm to study language processing: A review and critical evaluation. Acta Psychologica, 137(2), 151-171.
    • Kemmerer, D. (2015). Are the motor features of verb meanings represented in the precentral motor cortices? Yes, but within the context of a flexible, multilevel architecture for conceptual knowledge. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(4), 1068-1075.
    • Kemmerer, D. (2016). Categories of Object Concepts Across Languages and Brains: The Relevance of Nominal Classification Systems to Cognitive Neuroscience. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience.
    • Kruschke, J. K. (1992). ALCOVE: An exemplar-based connectionist model of category learning. Psychological Review, 99(1), 22-44.
    • Landauer, T. K., McNamara, D. S., Dennis, S., & Kintsch, W. (2013). Handbook of Latent Semantic Analysis. East Sussex: Psychology Press.
    • Lebois, L. A. M., Wilson-Mendenhall, C. D., & Barsalou, L. W. (2015). Are automatic conceptual cores the gold standard of semantic processing? The context-dependence of spatial meaning in grounded congruency effects. Cognitive Science, 39, 1764-1801.
    • Louwerse, M. M. (2011). Symbol interdependency in symbolic and embodied cognition. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3(2), 273-302.
    • Malt, B. C. (1995). Category coherence in cross-cultural perspective. Cognitive Psychology, 29, 85- 148.
    • Martin, A. (2007). The representation of object concepts in the brain. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 25-45.
    • Martin, A. (2015). GRAPES-Grounding representations in action, perception, and emotion systems: How object properties and categories are represented in the human brain. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.
    • Maurer, D., & Werker, J. F. (2014). Perceptual narrowing during infancy: A comparison of language and faces. Developmental Psychobiology, 56(2), 154-178.
    • McRae, K., Cree, G. S., Seidenberg, M. S., & McNorgan, C. (2005). Semantic feature production norms for a large set of living and nonliving things. Behavior Research Methods, 37(4), 547- 559.
    • Nosofsky, R. M. (2011). The generalized context model: An exemplar model of classification. In E. M. Pothos & A. J. Willis, Formal approaches in categorization (pp. 18-39). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    • Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual-coding approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    • Santos, A., Chaigneau, S. E., Simmons, W. K., & Barsalou, L. W. (2011). Property generation reflects word association and situated simulation. Language and Cognition, 3, 83-119.
    • Schoenfeld, M. A., Hopf, J.-M., Martinez, A., Mai, H. M., Sattler, C., Gasde, A., … Hillyard, S. A. (2007). Spatio-temporal Analysis of Feature-Based Attention. Cerebral Cortex, 17(10), 2468- 2477.
    • Tanenhaus, M. K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Eberhard, K. M., & Sedivy, J. C. (1995). Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science, 268(5217), 1632-1634.
    • Trabasso, T., & Bower, G. H. (1975). Attention in learning: Theory and research. Krieger Pub Co.
    • Werker, J. F., & Hensch, T. K. (2015). Critical Periods in Speech Perception: New Directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 66(1), 173-196.
    • Wu, L. L., & Barsalou, L. W. (2009). Perceptual simulation in conceptual combination: Evidence from property generation. Acta Psychologica, 132, 173-189.
    • Yee, E., & Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2016). Putting concepts into context. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article