21 found
Order:
  1.  72
    Time in the mind: Using space to think about time.Daniel Casasanto & Lera Boroditsky - 2008 - Cognition 106 (2):579-593.
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   120 citations  
  2.  32
    The Hands of Time: Temporal gestures in English speakers.Daniel Casasanto & Kyle Jasmin - 2012 - Cognitive Linguistics 23 (4):643–674.
    Do English speakers think about time the way they talk about it? In spoken English, time appears to flow along the sagittal axis (front/back): the future is ahead and the past is behind us. Here we show that when asked to gesture about past and future events deliberately, English speakers often use the sagittal axis, as language suggests they should. By contrast, when producing co-speech gestures spontaneously, they use the lateral axis (left/right) overwhelmingly more often, gesturing leftward for earlier times (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   37 citations  
  3.  38
    Motor Action and Emotional Memory.Daniel Casasanto & Katinka Dijkstra - 2010 - Cognition 115 (1):179.
  4.  40
    Hidden Differences in Phenomenal Experience.Gary Lupyan, Ryutaro Uchiyama, Bill Thompson & Daniel Casasanto - 2023 - Cognitive Science 47 (1):e13239.
    In addition to the many easily observable differences between people, there are also differences in people's subjective experiences that are harder to observe, and which, as a consequence, remain hidden. For example, people vary widely in how much visual imagery they experience. But those who cannot see in their mind's eye, tend to assume everyone is like them. Those who can, assume everyone else can as well. We argue that a study of such hidden phenomenal differences has much to teach (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  5.  50
    Space and Time in the Child’s Mind: Evidence for a Cross-Dimensional Asymmetry.Daniel Casasanto, Olga Fotakopoulou & Lera Boroditsky - 2010 - Cognitive Science 34 (3):387-405.
    What is the relationship between space and time in the human mind? Studies in adults show an asymmetric relationship between mental representations of these basic dimensions of experience: Representations of time depend on space more than representations of space depend on time. Here we investigated the relationship between space and time in the developing mind. Native Greek‐speaking children watched movies of two animals traveling along parallel paths for different distances or durations and judged the spatial and temporal aspects of these (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   30 citations  
  6. Handedness Shapes Children’s Abstract Concepts.Daniel Casasanto & Tania Henetz - 2012 - Cognitive Science 36 (2):359-372.
    Can children’s handedness influence how they represent abstract concepts like kindness and intelligence? Here we show that from an early age, right-handers associate rightward space more strongly with positive ideas and leftward space with negative ideas, but the opposite is true for left-handers. In one experiment, children indicated where on a diagram a preferred toy and a dispreferred toy should go. Right-handers tended to assign the preferred toy to a box on the right and the dispreferred toy to a box (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   18 citations  
  7.  32
    Space and time in the sighted and blind.Roberto Bottini, Davide Crepaldi, Daniel Casasanto, Virgine Crollen & Olivier Collignon - 2015 - Cognition 141 (C):67-72.
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  8.  47
    Can Culture Influence Body‐Specific Associations Between Space and Valence?Juanma Fuente, Daniel Casasanto, Antonio Román & Julio Santiago - 2015 - Cognitive Science 39 (4):821-832.
    People implicitly associate positive ideas with their dominant side of space and negative ideas with their non-dominant side. Right-handers tend to associate “good” with “right” and “bad” with “left,” but left-handers associate “bad” with “right” and “good” with “left.” Whereas right-handers' implicit associations align with idioms in language and culture that link “good” with “right,” left-handers' implicit associations go against them. Can cultural conventions modulate the body-specific association between valence and left-right space? Here, we compared people from Spanish and Moroccan (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  9.  62
    Do monkeys think in metaphors? Representations of space and time in monkeys and humans.Dustin J. Merritt, Daniel Casasanto & Elizabeth M. Brannon - 2010 - Cognition 117 (2):191-202.
  10.  19
    Metaphors we learn by: Directed motor action improves word learning.Daniel Casasanto & Angela de Bruin - 2019 - Cognition 182 (C):177-183.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  11.  22
    Spatializing Emotion: No Evidence for a Domain‐General Magnitude System.Benjamin Pitt & Daniel Casasanto - 2018 - Cognitive Science 42 (7):2150-2180.
    People implicitly associate different emotions with different locations in left-right space. Which aspects of emotion do they spatialize, and why? Across many studies people spatialize emotional valence, mapping positive emotions onto their dominant side of space and negative emotions onto their non-dominant side, consistent with theories of metaphorical mental representation. Yet other results suggest a conflicting mapping of emotional intensity (a.k.a., emotional magnitude), according to which people associate more intense emotions with the right and less intense emotions with the left (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  12.  22
    The Faulty Magnitude Detector: Why SNARC‐Like Tasks Cannot Support a Generalized Magnitude System.Daniel Casasanto & Benjamin Pitt - 2019 - Cognitive Science 43 (10):e12794.
    Do people represent space, time, number, and other conceptual domains using a generalized magnitude system (GMS)? To answer this question, numerous studies have used the spatial‐numerical association of response codes (SNARC) task and its variants. Yet, for a combination of reasons, SNARC‐like effects cannot provide evidence for a GMS, even in principle. Rather, these effects support a broader theory of how people use space metaphorically to scaffold their understanding of myriad non‐spatial domains, whether or not these domains exhibit variation in (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  13. How deep are effects of language on thought? Time estimation in speakers of English and Greek.Daniel Casasanto, Olga Fotokopolou, Ria Pita & Lera Boroditsky - unknown
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  14.  32
    Meaning is Not a Reflex: Context Dependence of Spatial Congruity Effects.Daniel Casasanto, Geoffrey Brookshire & Richard Ivry - 2015 - Cognitive Science 39 (8):1979-1986.
    In two experiments, Brookshire, Ivry, and Casasanto showed that words with positive and negative emotional valence can activate spatial representations with a high degree of automaticity, but also that this activation is highly context dependent. Lebois, Wilson-Mendenhall, and Barsalou reported that they “aimed to replicate” our study but found only null results in the “Brookshire et al. replication” conditions. Here we express concerns about three aspects of this paper. First, the study was not an attempt to replicate ours; it was (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  15.  32
    Modulation of motor-meaning congruity effects for valenced words.G. Brookshire, Daniel Casasanto & Richard Ivry - 2010 - In S. Ohlsson & R. Catrambone (eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Cognitive Science Society. pp. 1940--1945.
  16.  25
    Spatial Congruity Effects Reveal Metaphorical Thinking, not Polarity Correspondence.Sarah Dolscheid & Daniel Casasanto - 2015 - Frontiers in Psychology 6.
  17.  11
    Gesturing during disfluent speech: A pragmatic account.Yağmur Deniz Kısa, Susan Goldin-Meadow & Daniel Casasanto - 2024 - Cognition 250 (C):105855.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  18. Virtually accommodating: Speech rate accommodation to a virtual interlocutor.Laura Staum Casasanto, Kyle Jasmin & Daniel Casasanto - 2010 - In S. Ohlsson & R. Catrambone (eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Cognitive Science Society.
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  19. Discovering the conceptual primitives.Lisa Aziz-Zadeh, Daniel Casasanto, Jerome Feldman, Rebecca Saxe & Leonard Talmy - 2008 - In B. C. Love, K. McRae & V. M. Sloutsky (eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Cognitive Science Society.
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  20. Body-specific representations of action verbs: Evidence from fMRI in right-and left-handers.Daniel Casasanto, Roel Willems & Peter Hagoort - 2009 - In N. A. Taatgen & H. van Rijn (eds.), Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. pp. 875--880.
  21.  20
    The Reverse Chameleon Effect: Negative Social Consequences of Anatomical Mimicry.Daniel Casasanto, Laura Staum Casasanto, Tom Gijssels & Peter Hagoort - 2020 - Frontiers in Psychology 11:491821.
    Bodily mimicry often makes the mimickee have more positive feelings about the mimicker. Yet, little is known about the causes of mimicry’s social effects. When people mimic each other’s bodily movements face to face, they can either adopt a mirrorwise perspective (moving in the same absolute direction) or an anatomical perspective (moving in the same direction relative to their own bodies). Mirrorwise mimicry maximizes visuo-spatial similarity between the mimicker and mimickee, whereas anatomical mimicry maximizes the similarity in the states of (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark