{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.032442396313364055, 'fraction_numerical': 0.012350230414746545, 'mean_word_length': 5.353629976580796, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 2, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Motion Language Shapes People's Interpretation of Unrelated Ambiguous Figures

Motion Language Shapes People’s Interpretation of Unrelated Ambiguous Figures Alexia Toskos Dils (atoskos@psych.stanford.edu) Department of Psychology, 450 Serra Mall, Bldg. 420 Stanford, CA 94041 USA Lera Boroditsky (lera@psych.stanford.edu) Department of Psychology, 450 Serra Mall, Bldg. 420 Stanford, CA 94041 USA stationary stimulus will appear to drift downward (in the direction opposite of adaptation). This same phenomenon has been observed when subjects simply imagine motion in one direction and are then tested on a real motion stimulus (Winawer et al., 2005). Viewing still images that imply motion (e.g., photos of sprinters in mid leap) also produces such adaptation (Winawer, Huk, & Boroditsky, in press). These results demonstrate that imagining motion activates (and adapts) the very same direction-selective neurons as are involved in normal motion perception. In this paper we ask whether the representations derived in the course of normal language processing also interact with perceptual processing. When people hear a story that describes motion, do they naturally form the same kinds of representations as when asked to vividly imagine motion or when simply inferring motion from a frozen-motion photograph? In our study, people read a story that described motion either upward or downward and then were asked to interpret an unrelated ambiguous image. The figure (shown in Figure 1) could be seen as a bird flying upward or downward (the participants were simply asked to “draw a worm in the bird’s beak”). Would reading a story describing motion upward, for example, bias the way people interpreted an unrelated ambiguous figure? And if so, which way would the influence go? Some researchers have suggested that language processing involves simulating the visual scenes being described (Barsalou, 1999; Bergen, Lindsay, Matlock, & Narayanan, 2007; Gallese & Lakoff, 2005; Glenberg & Kaschak, 2002; Matlock, Ramscar, & Boroditsky, 2005; Richardson, Spivey, Barsalou, & McRae, 2003; Zwaan, Madden, Yaxley, & Aveyard, 2004). The simulations on this proposal re-enact the same neural patterns of firing that would occur if the visual scene being described were actually being perceived. On a very radical version of this proposal, hearing a story about downward motion would activate the same neurons in visual cortex as are involved in seeing downward motion. In this case, downward- selective neurons in the motion-sensitive area MT, for example, would be activated when reading about a mudslide or a waterfall. On less radical versions of this proposal, processing language might only partially re- enact perceptual representations, or re-enact them at a higher more abstract level of processing not necessarily involving low-level visual processing areas. An alternative view is that representations created in the Abstract When we hear a story that describes motion, do we naturally imagine the motion described? To what extent do the mental images generated through language share processing resources with perception? In our studies, people read a story describing upward or downward motion and were later asked to interpret an unrelated ambiguous figure. The figure could have been seen as a bird flying upward or downward, and the participants were simply asked to “draw a worm in the bird’s beak”. People’s interpretations of the ambiguous figure revealed a congruity effect when the stories depicted visual motion of a real world object. Those who had read a story describing upward motion were more likely to interpret the ambiguous image as a bird flying up than those who read a story describing downward motion. However, there was no effect when the stories depicted metaphorical motion. These findings suggest that more concrete linguistic descriptions of motion do generate representations or mental states that interact with perception. Further these studies provide hints about the level at which representations generated by normal language processing interact with perceptual processing. Keywords: Embodiment; Simulation; Imagery; Language; Perception; Motion Introduction Humans are able to quickly and easily translate between visual and verbal representations. We can verbally describe visual scenes, and we can construct mental or physical images from linguistic descriptions. In this paper we are interested in the extent to which the representations derived in the course of normal language comprehension interact with perceptual processes. Previous research has demonstrated remarkable overlap between the representations and processes that underlie mental imagery and those used in the service of perception itself. For example, imagining motion or inferring motion implied in frozen motion photographs activates the same motion sensitive regions of the brain (e.g., the visual area MT) as actually perceiving motion (Goebel et al., 1998; Kourtzi & Kanwisher, 2000). Further, imagining motion is sufficient to produce a motion after-effect or waterfall illusion (Winawer, Witthoft, Huk, & Boroditsky, 2005). The motion after-effect (MAE) is the result of adaptation in motion-sensitive direction-selective neurons in the brain. Viewing motion upward, for example, serves to adapt upward-selective neurons in MT, temporarily depressing their firing rate. Following adaptation to upward motion, a