title: Individual differences in executive control relate to metaphor processing: an eye movement study of sentence reading.
abstract: Metaphors are common elements of language that allow us to creatively stretch the limits of word meaning. However, metaphors vary in their degree of novelty, which determines whether people must create new meanings on-line or retrieve previously known metaphorical meanings from memory. Such variations affect the degree to which general cognitive capacities such as executive control are required for successful comprehension. We investigated whether individual differences in executive control relate to metaphor processing using eye movement measures of reading. Thirty-nine participants read sentences including metaphors or idioms, another form of figurative language that is more likely to rely on meaning retrieval. They also completed the AX-CPT, a domain-general executive control task. In Experiment 1, we examined sentences containing metaphorical or literal uses of verbs, presented with or without prior context. In Experiment 2, we examined sentences containing idioms or literal phrases for the same participants to determine whether the link to executive control was qualitatively similar or different to Experiment 1. When metaphors were low familiar, all people read verbs used as metaphors more slowly than verbs used literally (this difference was smaller for high familiar metaphors). Executive control capacity modulated this pattern in that high executive control readers spent more time reading verbs when a prior context forced a particular interpretation (metaphorical or literal), and they had faster total metaphor reading times when there was a prior context. Interestingly, executive control did not relate to idiom processing for the same readers. Here, all readers had faster total reading times for high familiar idioms than literal phrases. Thus, executive control relates to metaphor but not idiom processing for these readers, and for the particular metaphor and idiom reading manipulations presented.
authors: Department of Psychology, McGill University Montreal, QC, Canada ; Centre for Research on Brain, Language, and Music, McGill University Montreal, QC, Canada.
authors: Georgie
authors: G
authors: Columbus
authors: Department of Psychology, McGill University Montreal, QC, Canada ; Centre for Research on Brain, Language, and Music, McGill University Montreal, QC, Canada.
authors: Naveed A
authors: NA
authors: Sheikh
authors: Department of Psychology, McGill University Montreal, QC, Canada.
authors: Marilena
authors: M
authors: Côté-Lecaldare
authors: Centre for Research on Brain, Language, and Music, McGill University Montreal, QC, Canada ; School of Communication Sciences and Disorders, McGill University Montreal, QC, Canada.
authors: Katja
authors: K
authors: Häuser
authors: Centre for Research on Brain, Language, and Music, McGill University Montreal, QC, Canada ; School of Communication Sciences and Disorders, McGill University Montreal, QC, Canada.
authors: Shari R
authors: SR
authors: Baum
authors: Department of Psychology, McGill University Montreal, QC, Canada ; Centre for Research on Brain, Language, and Music, McGill University Montreal, QC, Canada.
authors: Debra
authors: D
authors: Titone
keywords: context; executive control; eye movements; idioms; metaphor; sentence reading
references: Psychol Sci. 1995 May;6(3):165-169
references: 25309047
references: Cogn Psychol. 2000 Aug;41(1):49-100
references: 10945922
references: Psychon Bull Rev. 2000 Jun;7(2):257-66
references: 10909133
references: Exp Psychol. 2004;51(4):290-9
references: 15620230
references: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2013 Apr;39(2):526-38
references: 22866764
references: Brain Lang. 2013 Dec;127(3):484-96
references: 24182839
references: Brain Lang. 2012 Nov;123(2):137-42
references: 23063676
references: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2007 Oct;33(5):1250-5
references: 17924820
references: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1989 Sep;15(5):779-90
references: 2528602
references: J Cogn Neurosci. 2003 Jul 1;15(5):643-57
references: 12965038
references: Psychon Bull Rev. 2010 Jun;17(3):400-4
references: 20551365
references: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1993 Mar;19(2):295-308
references: 7681095
references: Mem Cognit. 2003 Jul;31(5):673-89
references: 12956233
references: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2001 Mar;27(2):556-73
references: 11294449
references: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1999 Nov;25(6):1366-83
references: 10605827
references: J Mem Lang. 2013 Apr;68(3):null
references: 24403724
references: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1994 Sep;20(5):1126-38
references: 7931098
references: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1990 May;16(3):430-45
references: 2140402
references: Behav Res Methods. 2010 Aug;42(3):651-64
references: 20805587
references: J Exp Psychol Gen. 2001 Dec;130(4):746-63
references: 11757878
references: Brain Lang. 2007 Feb;100(2):115-26
references: 16290261
references: Dev Sci. 2009 Nov;12(6):978-90
references: 19840052
references: Mem Cognit. 2008 Sep;36(6):1103-21
references: 18927029
references: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2010 Sep;36(5):1150-70
references: 20804291
references: Brain Lang. 2013 Jan;124(1):66-74
references: 23291493
references: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1991 Mar;17(2):245-62
references: 1827830
references: Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2009 Aug;62(8):1457-506
references: 19449261
references: Laterality. 2009 Nov;14(6):573-89
references: 19253086
references: Psychol Rev. 2005 Jan;112(1):193-216
references: 15631593
references: J Mem Lang. 2001 Oct 1;45(3):433-450
references: 25110388
references: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2012 Mar;38(2):282-94
references: 22122242
references: Trends Cogn Sci. 2003 Feb;7(2):92-96
references: 12584028
references: Neuroimage. 2012 Feb 15;59(4):3212-21
references: 22155328
references: Psychol Bull. 1998 Nov;124(3):372-422
references: 9849112
references: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2008 Nov;34(6):1534-43
references: 18980412