Search

The Action-sentence Compatibility Effect (ACE) is a well-known demonstration of the role of motor activity in the comprehension of language. Participants are asked to make sensibility judgments on sentences by producing movements toward the body or away from the body. The ACE is the finding that movements are faster when the direction of the movement (e.g., toward) matches the direction of the action in the to-be-judged sentence (e.g., Art gave you the pen describes action toward you). We report on a pre-registered, multi-lab replication of one version of the ACE. The results show that none of the 18 labs involved in the study observed a reliable ACE, and that the meta-analytic estimate of the size of the ACE was essentially zero.

Background: Reference frames ground spatial communication by mapping ambiguous language (for example, navigation: "to the left") to properties of the speaker (using a Relative reference frame: "to my left") or the world (Absolute reference frame: "to the north"). People's preferences for reference frame vary depending on factors like their culture, the specific task in which they are engaged, and differences among individuals. Although most people are proficient with both reference frames, it is unknown whether preference for reference frames is stable within people or varies based on the specific spatial domain. These alternatives are difficult to adjudicate because navigation is one of few spatial domains that can be naturally solved using multiple reference frames. That is, while spatial navigation directions can be specified using Absolute or Relative reference frames ("go north" vs "go left"), other spatial domains predominantly use Relative reference frames. Here, we used two domains to test the stability of reference frame preference: one based on navigating a four-way intersection; and the other based on the sport of ultimate frisbee. We recruited 58 ultimate frisbee players to complete an online experiment. We measured reaction time and accuracy while participants solved spatial problems in each domain using verbal prompts containing either Relative or Absolute reference frames. Details of the task in both domains were kept as similar as possible while remaining ecologically plausible so that reference frame preference could emerge. Results: We pre-registered a prediction that participants would be faster using their preferred reference frame type and that this advantage would correlate across domains; we did not find such a correlation. Instead, the data reveal that people use distinct reference frames in each domain. Conclusion: This experiment reveals that spatial reference frame types are not stable and may be differentially suited to specific domains. This finding has broad implications for communicating spatial information by offering an important consideration for how spatial reference frames are used in communication: task constraints may affect reference frame choice as much as individual factors or culture.

There is contradictory evidence on whether speech productiongets impaired or enhanced when people are restrained fromgesturing. There is also very little research on how this effectcan change with aging. The present study sought evidence forthese by asking young and elderly adults to describe twodifferent routes on a map in spontaneous speech and whengestures were prohibited. We found that elderly adultsproduced more spatial language when they were restricted touse gestures compared to their spontaneous speech, whereasyoung adults produced comparable levels of spatial languagein both conditions. Young and elderly adults used comparablelevels of gestures in their spontaneous route descriptions. Yet,only young adults’ gesture use correlated positively with theirspatial language production. Thus, the results of gestureprohibition on speech production are different for young andelderly adults.

The field of neuroaesthetics has gained in popularity in recent years but also attracted criticism from the perspectives both of the humanities and the sciences. In an effort to consolidate research in the field, we characterize neuroaesthetics as the cognitive neuroscience of aesthetic experience, drawing on long traditions of research in empirical aesthetics on the one hand and cognitive neuroscience on the other. We clarify the aims and scope of the field, identifying relations among neuroscientific investigations of aesthetics, beauty, and art. The approach we advocate takes as its object of study a wide spectrum of aesthetic experiences, resulting from interactions of individuals, sensory stimuli, and context. Drawing on its parent fields, a cognitive neuroscience of aesthetics would investigate the complex cognitive processes and functional networks of brain regions involved in those experiences without placing a value on them. Thus, the cognitive neuroscientific approach may develop in a way that is mutually complementary to approaches in the humanities.

ObjectiveTo evaluate the evidence basis of single-domain cognitive tests frequently used by behavioral neurologists in an effort to improve the quality of clinical cognitive assessment.MethodsBehavioral Neurology Section members of the American Academy of Neurology were surveyed about how they conduct clinical cognitive testing, with a particular focus on the Neurobehavioral Status Exam (NBSE). In contrast to general screening cognitive tests, an NBSE consists of tests of individual cognitive domains (e.g., memory or language) that provide a more comprehensive diagnostic assessment. Workgroups for each of 5 cognitive domains (attention, executive function, memory, language, and spatial cognition) conducted evidence-based reviews of frequently used tests. Reviews focused on suitability for office-based clinical practice, including test administration time, accessibility of normative data, disease populations studied, and availability in the public domain.ResultsDemographic and clinical practice data were obtained from 200 respondents who reported using a wide range of cognitive tests. Based on survey data and ancillary information, between 5 and 15 tests in each cognitive domain were reviewed. Within each domain, several tests are highlighted as being well-suited for an NBSE.ConclusionsWe identified frequently used single-domain cognitive tests that are suitable for an NBSE to help make informed choices about clinical cognitive assessment. Some frequently used tests have limited normative data or have not been well-studied in common neurologic disorders. Utilizing standardized cognitive tests, particularly those with normative data based on the individual's age and educational level, can enhance the rigor and utility of clinical cognitive assessment.

We investigated (1) how focal brain-injured patients describe causal events (causal verb like “push” and the instrumentof the action like “the stick”) in speech and co-speech gestures and (2) whether gestures compensate for their impairedverbalization. 16 left hemisphere damaged (LHD), 16 right hemisphere damaged (RHD) and 14 controls were asked to describecausal events (22 video clips). The correct use of causal action components in speech and iconic gestures referring to theseactions were coded. Results indicated that LHD patients were less accurate in using both components in speech compared toRHD and controls. There was no difference in the number of iconic gestures among groups. Yet, LHD patients were morelikely to omit or misuse both components in speech and in gesture than RHD and controls. Particularly, damage to the leftinferior and middle frontal gyrus resulted in problems in both modalities, suggesting conceptual deficits of causality.