• Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390412.
  • Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavior and Brain Sciences, 22, 577660.
  • 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 (Eds.), Symbols, embodiment, and meaning (pp. 245283). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
  • Brants, T., & Franz, A. (2006). Web 1T 5-gram Version 1. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.
  • Christiansen, M. H. & Chater, N. (2008). Language as shaped by the brain. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 31, 489558.
  • Connell, L. (2007). Representing object colour in language comprehension. Cognition, 102, 476485.
  • Connell, L., & Lynott, D. (2009). Is a bear white in the woods? Parallel representation of implied object color during language comprehension. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 16, 573577.
  • Connell, L., & Lynott, D. (2010). Look but don’t touch: Tactile disadvantage in processing modality-specific words. Cognition, 115, 19.
  • Connell, L., & Lynott, D. (in press). Modality switching costs emerge in concept creation as well as retrieval. Cognitive Science.
  • Ferreira, F., Ferraro, V., & Bailey, K. G. D. (2002). Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 1115.
    Direct Link:
  • Fodor, J. A. (1975). The language of thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Glenberg, A. M. (1997). What memory is for. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 20, 155.
  • Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Littell, R. C., Stroup, W. W., & Freund, R. J. (2002). SAS for linear models (4th ed.). Cary, NC: SAS Publishing.
  • Louwerse, M. M. (2007). Symbolic or embodied representations: A case for symbol interdependency. In T.Landauer, D.McNamara, S.Dennis, & W.Kintsch (Eds.), Handbook of latent semantic analysis (pp. 107120). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Louwerse, M. M. (2008). Embodied representations are encoded in language. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 15, 838844.
  • Louwerse, M. M. (2010). Symbol interdependency in symbolic and embodied cognition. Topics in Cognitive Science (TopiCS). DOI: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2010.01106.x.
  • Louwerse, M. M., & Jeuniaux, P. (2008). Language comprehension is both embodied and symbolic. In Vega, A.Glenberg & A. C.Graesser (Eds.), Embodiment and meaning: A debate (pp. 309326). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
  • Louwerse, M. M., & Jeuniaux, P. (2010). The linguistic and embodied nature of conceptual processing. Cognition, 114, 96104.
  • Lynott, D., & Connell, L. (2009). Modality exclusivity norms for 423 object properties. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 558564.
  • Madden, C. J., & Zwaan, R. A. (2006). Perceptual representation as a mechanism of lexical ambiguity resolution: An investigation of span and processing time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 32, 12911303.
  • Marques, J. F. (2006). Specialization and semantic organization: Evidence for multiple-semantics linked to sensory modalities. Memory & Cognition, 34, 6067.
  • Nelson, D. L., McEvoy, C. L., & Schreiber, T. A. (2004). The University of South Florida word association, rhyme, and word fragment norms. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 402407.
  • Pecher, D., Zeelenberg, R., & Barsalou, L. W. (2003). Verifying different-modality properties for concepts produces switching costs. Psychological Science, 14, 119124.
    Direct Link:
  • Pecher, D., Zeelenberg, R., & Barsalou, L. W. (2004). Sensorimotor simulations underlie conceptual representations: Modality-specific effects of prior activation. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 11, 164167.
  • Pecher, D., & Zwaan, R. A. (Eds.) (2005). Grounding cognition: The role of perception and action in memory, language, and thinking. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1984). Computation and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Semin, G. R., & Smith, E. R. (Eds.) (2008). Embodied grounding: Social, cognitive, affective, and neuroscientific approaches. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Solomon, K. O., & Barsalou, L. W. (2004). Perceptual simulation in property verification. Memory & Cognition, 32, 244259.
  • Van Dantzig, S., Pecher, D., Zeelenberg, R., & Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Perceptual processing affects conceptual processing. Cognitive Science, 32, 579590.
  • Van Petten, C. M., Weckerly, J., McIsaac, H. K., & Kutas, M. (1997). Working memory capacity dissociates lexical and sentential context effects. Psychological Science, 8, 238242.
    Direct Link:
  • Vermeulen, N., Corneille, O., & Niedenthal, P. M. (2008). Sensory load incurs conceptual processing costs. Cognition, 109, 287294.
  • Zwaan, R. A. (2004). The immersed experience: Toward an embodied theory of language comprehension. In B. H.Ross (Ed.), The psychology of language and motivation, 44 (pp. 3562). New York: Academic Press.
  • Zwaan, R. A. (2008). Experiential traces and mental simulations in language comprehension. In M.DeVega, A. M.Glenberg, & A. C.Graesser (Eds.), Symbols, embodiment, and meaning (pp. 165180). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
  • Zwaan, R. A., & Yaxley, R. H. (2003). Spatial iconicity affects semantic-relatedness judgments. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 10, 954958.