SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577660.
  • Boot, I., & Pecher, D. (2010). Similarity is closeness: Metaphorical mapping in a conceptual task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(5), 942954.
  • Bowdle, B. F., & Gentner, D. (2005). The career of metaphor. Psychological Review, 112(1), 193215.
  • Casasanto, D. (2008). Similarity and proximity: When does close in space mean close in mind? Memory & Cognition, 36(6), 10471056.
  • Desmarais, G., Dixon, M. J., & Roy, E. A. (2007). A role for action knowledge in visual object identification. Memory & Cognition, 35(7), 17121723.
  • Elliott, R. (2003). Executive functions and their disorders. British Medical Bulletin, 65, 4959.
  • Gentner, D. (1978). A study of early word meaning using artificial objects: What looks like a jiggy but acts like a zimbo? Papers and Reports on Child Language Development, 15, 16.
  • Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 155170.
  • Gentner, D., & Clement, C. (1988). Evidence for relational selectivity in the interpretation of analogy and metaphor. In G. H. Bower (Ed.) The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (pp. 307358). New York: Academic Press.
  • Gibbs, R. (2006). Metaphor: Psychological aspects. In K. Allan & J. Mey (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (pp. 4350). London: Elsevier.
  • Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, acting, and knowing: Toward an ecological psychology (pp. 6782). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
  • Glucksberg, S. (2003). The psycholinguistics of metaphor. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(2), 9296.
  • Glucksberg, S., McGlone, M. S., & Manfredini, D. A. (1997). Property attribution in metaphor comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 5067.
  • Grady, J. (1997). Foundations of meaning: Primary metaphors and primary scenes. PhD dissertation. Berkeley: University of California.
  • Humphreys, G. W., & Forde, E. M. E. (2001). Hierarchies, similarity, and interactivity in object recognition: “Category-specific” neuropsychological deficits. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 453509.
  • Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
  • Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363394.
  • Lakoff, G. (1987). Image metaphors. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 2(3), 219222.
  • Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980a). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  • Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980b). The metaphorical structure of the human conceptual system. Cognitive Science, 4, 195208.
  • Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Primary metaphor and subjective experience. In G. Lakoff & M. Johnson (Eds.), Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought (pp. 4559). New York: Basic Books.
  • Landau, B., Smith, L., & Jones, S. (1998). Object shape, object function, and object name. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 127.
  • Ortony, A. (1979). Beyond literal similarity. Psychological Review, 86, 161180.
  • Richland, L. E., Morrison, R. G., & Holyoak, K. J. (2006). Children's development of analogical reasoning: Insights from scene analogy problems. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 94, 249273.
  • Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M., & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 382439.
  • Schubert, T. W. (2005). Your Highness: Vertical positions as perceptual symbols of power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 121.
  • Sloutsky, V. M. (2003). The role of similarity in the development of categorization. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(6), 246251.
  • Stanfield, R. A., & Zwaan, R. A. (2001). The effect of implied orientation derived from verbal context on picture recognition. Psychological Science, 12(2), 153156.
    Direct Link:
  • Steen, G. J., Dorst, A. G., Herrmann, J. B., Kaal, A. A., & Krennmayr, T. (2010). Metaphor in usage. Cognitive Linguistics, 21(4), 765796.
  • Thibaut, J.-P., French, R. M., & Vezneva, M. (2010). Cognitive load and semantic analogies: Searching semantic space. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 17, 569574.
  • Tversky, B., & Hemenway, K. (1984). Objects, parts, and categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113(2), 169193.
  • Urena, J. M., & Faber, P. (2010). Reviewing imagery in resemblance and non-resemblance metaphors. Cognitive Linguistics, 21(1), 123149.
  • Van Weelden, L., Maes, A., Schilperoord, J., & Cozijn, R. (2011). The role of shape in comparing objects: How perceptual similarity may affect visual metaphor processing. Metaphor and Symbol, 26(4), 272298.
  • Van Weelden, L., Maes, A., Schilperoord, J., & Swerts, M. (2012). How object shape affects visual metaphor processing. Experimental Psychology, 59(6), 364371.
  • Vandeberg, L., Eerland, A., & Zwaan, R. A. (2012). Out of mind, out of sight: Language affects perceptual vividness in memory. PLoS ONE, 7(4), 16.
  • Zwaan, R. A., Stanfield, R. A., & Yaxley, R. H. (2002). Language comprehenders mentally represent the shapes of objects. Psychological Science, 13(2), 168171.
    Direct Link: