Technology and Cognition: Does the Device We Use Constrain the Way We Retrieve Word Meanings?

  • Tania Cerni
  • Remo Job
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8210)


We examined the possible implication of two different technological tools, the touch screen and the keyboard, on cross-modal interaction in writing. To do this, we revisit experiments (e.g. [1]) that investigated the recovery of spatial iconicity in semantic judgment and applied them in writing to dictation. In the present experiment participants had to type or to handwrite on a touchscreen, in the upper part or in the lower part of the screen, words whose referents are typically associated with the top or the bottom part of space. In this way congruent (e.g. cloud at the top of the screen) or incongruent (e.g. cloud at the bottom of the screen) conditions were created. The hypothesis was that incongruent conditions give rise to a delay in starting to write more pronounced for touch screen session than for the keyboard one. Results are discussed in terms of embodied cognition theory.


Touch Screen Incongruent Condition Word Cloud Semantic Judgment Writing Modality 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Ŝetić, M., Domijan, D.: The influence of vertical spatial orientation on property verification. Language and Cognitive Processes 22, 297–312 (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pezzulo, G., Barsalou, L., Cangelosi, A., Fischer, M., McRae, K., Spivey, M.: Computational Grounded Cognition: A New Alliance between Grounded Cognition and Computational Modeling. Frontiers in Psychology 3, 612 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Estes, Z., Verges, M., Barsalou, L.W.: Head up, foot down: Object words orient attention to the objects typical location. Psychological Science 19, 93–99 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pecher, D., Van Dantzig, S., Boot, I., Zanolie, K., Huber, D.E.: Congruency between word position and meaning is caused by task induced spatial attention. Frontiers in Cognition 1, 1–8 (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zwaan, R., Yaxley, R.: Spatial Iconicity Affects Semantic Relatedness Judgments. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 10(4), 954–958 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Glenberg, A.M., Kaschak, M.P.: Grounding language in action. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 9, 558–565 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Job, R., Treccani, B., Mulatti, C.: Perceptual and motor spatial representations in word recognition. In: Cadinu, M., Galdi, S., Maass, A. (eds.) Social Perception, Cognition, and Language, pp. 151–165. Cleup, Padova (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lakens, D.: High Skies and Oceans Deep: Polarity Benefits or Mental Simulation? Frontiers in Psychology 2, 21 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jasmin, K., Casasanto, D.: The QWERTY effect: How typing shapes the meaning of words. Psychonomic Bulletin and Revie 19, 499–504 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mangen, A., Velay, J.L.: Digitizing literacy: Reflections on the haptics of writing. In: Zadeh, M.H. (ed.) Advances in Haptics. InTech (2010) ISBN: 978-953-307-093-3,
  11. 11.
    Longcamp, M., Zerbato-Poudou, M.T., Velay, J.-L.: The influence of writing practice on letter recognition in preschool children: A comparison between handwriting and typing. Acta Psychologica 119, 67–79 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Longcamp, M., Boucard, C., Gilhodes, J.C., Velay, J.L.: Remembering the orientation of newly learned characters depends on the associated writing knowledge: A comparison between handwriting and typing. Human Movement Science 25, 646–656 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    James, K.H., Atwood, T.P.: The role of sensorimotor learning in the perception of letter-like forms: tracking the causes of neural specialization for letters. Cognitive Neuropsychology 26, 91–110 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    James, K.H., Engelhardt, L.: The effect of handwriting experience on functional brain development in pre-literate children. Trends in Neuroscience and Education 1, 32–42 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Longcamp, M., Hlushchuk, Y., Hari, R.: What differs in visual recognition of handwritten vs. printed letters? An fMRI study. Human Brain Mapping 32, 1250–1259 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tania Cerni
    • 1
  • Remo Job
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Psychology and Cognitive ScienceUniversity of TrentoItaly

Personalised recommendations