Your browser does not support the PubReader view.
Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.
The Korean Association for the Study of English Language and Linguistics
[ Article ]
Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 25, No. 0, pp.1170-1181
ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print) 2586-7474 (Online)
Print publication date 31 Jan 2025
Received 11 Jul 2025 Revised 05 Aug 2025 Accepted 19 Aug 2025
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.25..202508.1170

Neural Correlates of Body-Object Interaction Effects in Word Reading: An fMRI Study

Haeil Park ; Jae-Young Lee
(First Author) Professor, Department of English Language and Literature Kyung Hee University 26 Kyungheedae-ro, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, 02447, Korea Tel: +82-2-961-9587 joypark@khu.ac.kr
(Corresponding Author) Professor, Department of English Language and Literature Seoul National University 1 Gwanak-ro, Gwanak-gu, Seoul, 08826, Korea Tel: +82-2-880-6091 jaelee@snu.ac.kr


© 2025 KASELL All rights reserved
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

The amodal symbolic model and the embodied cognition model offer distinct perspectives on conceptual knowledge or processing. While the amodal symbolic model views concepts as abstract and independent from sensory and motor experiences, the embodied cognition framework posits that concepts are grounded in sensory and motor experiences. This study investigates the neural underpinnings of the Body-Object Interaction (BOI) effect during word reading using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Participants read high and low BOI words while their brain activity was monitored. Our findings revealed significant activation in the left inferior frontal gyrus (Broca’s area), insula (BA 13), and supramarginal gyrus (BA 40) for high BOI words compared to low BOI words. These results support the embodied cognition model, suggesting that understanding high BOI words involves reactivating sensory and motor experiences associated with the words’ referents. The study advances the ongoing debate between the amodal symbolic and embodied cognition models and offers insights into the neural mechanisms of language comprehension, with potential applications in education, therapy, and artificial intelligence.

Keywords:

embodied cognition, Body-Object Interaction(BOI), amodal symbolic model, fMRI, word reading, Broca’s area

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and valuable suggestions.

References

  • Balota, D. A., M. J. Yap, M. J. Cortese, K. I. Hutchinson, B. Kessler, B. Loftis, J. H. Neely, D. L. Nelson, G. B. Simpson and R. Treiman. 2007. The English lexicon project. Behavior Research Methods 39, 445-459. [https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193014]
  • Barsalou, L. 1999. Perceptual symbol systems, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22, 577-660. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X99002149]
  • Barsalou, L. 2008. Grounded cognition, Annu Rev Psychol 59, 617-645. [https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639]
  • Binder, J. R., R. H. Desai, W. W. Graves and L. L. Conant. 2009. Where is the semantic system? A critical review and meta-analysis of 120 functional neuroimaging studies. Cerebral Cortex 19(12), 2767-2796. [https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhp055]
  • Brett, M, J. L. Anton, R. Valabregue and J. B. Poline. 2002. Region of interest analysis using an SPM toolbox, In 8th International Conference on Functional Mapping of the Human Brain, Neuroimage 16(2), 497.
  • Buxbaum, L. J., K. M. Kyle and R. Menon. 2005. On beyond mirror neurons: Internal representations subserving imitation and recognition of skilled object-related actions in humans. Cognitive Brain Research 25(1), 226-239. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2005.05.014]
  • Chumbley, J., K. Worsley, G. Flandin and K. J. Friston. 2010. “Topological FDR for neuroimaging,” Neuroimage 49(4), 3057-3064. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.10.090]
  • Corbetta, M. and G. L. Shulman. 2002. Control of goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention in the brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 3(3), 201-215. [https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn755]
  • Critchley, H. D., S. Wiens, P. Rotshtein, A. Öhman and R. J. Dolan. 2004. Neural systems supporting interoceptive awareness. Nature Neuroscience 7(2), 189-195. [https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1176]
  • Davis, C. J. 2005. N-Watch: A program for deriving neighborhood size and other psycholinguistic statistics. Behavior Research Methods 37, 65-70. [https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206399]
  • D’Esposito, M., J. A. Detre, D. C. Alsop, R. K. Shin, S. Atlas and M. Grossman. 1995. The neural basis of the central executive system of working memory. Nature 378(6554), 279-281. [https://doi.org/10.1038/378279a0]
  • Dronkers, N. F. 1996. A new brain region for coordinating speech articulation. Nature 384(6605), 159-161. [https://doi.org/10.1038/384159a0]
  • Fernandino, L., L. L. Conant, J. R. Binder, K. Blindauer, B. Hiner, K. Spangler and R. H. Desai. 2013. Parkinson’s disease disrupts both automatic and controlled processing of action verbs. Brain and Language 127, 65-74. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2012.07.008]
  • Fodor, J. 1975. The Language of Thought. Harvard University Press.
  • Gibbs, R. 2006. Metaphor Interpretation as Embodied Simulation, Mind and Language 21, 434-458. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2006.00285.x]
  • Hauk, O., I. Johnsrude and F. Pulvermüller. 2004. Somatotopic representation of action words in human motor and premotor cortex. Neuron 41, 301-307. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S0896-6273(03)00838-9]
  • Hickok, G. and D. Poeppel. 2007. The cortical organization of speech processing. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 8, 393-402. [https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2113]
  • James, K. H. and J. Maouene. 2009. Auditory verb perception recruits motor systems in the developing brain: an fMRI investigation. Developmental Science 12, F26-F34. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2009.00919.x]
  • Johnson-Frey, S. H. 2004. The neural bases of complex tool use in humans. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8(2), 71-78. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2003.12.002]
  • Kemmerer, D., J. Gonzalez Castillo, T. Talavage, S. Patterson and C. Wiley. 2008. Neuroanatomical distribution of five semantic components of verbs: Evidence from fMRI. Brain and Language 107, 16-43. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2007.09.003]
  • Miller, E. K. and J. D. Cohen. 2001. An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex function. Annual Review of Neuroscience 24(1), 167-202. [https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.neuro.24.1.167]
  • Oldfield, R. C. 1971. The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory, Neuropsychologia 9(1), 97-113. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(71)90067-4]
  • Paivio, A. 1991. Dual coding theory: Retrospect and current status. Canadian Journal of Psychology / Revue canadienne de psychologie 45(3), 255-287. [https://doi.org/10.1037/h0084295]
  • Pecher, D. and R. A. Zwaan. 2005. Grounded Cognition: The Role of Perception and Action in Memory, Language, and Thinking. Cambridge University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511499968]
  • Petrides, M. and D. N. Pandya. 2009. Distinct parietal and temporal pathways to the homologues of Broca’s area in the monkey. PLoS Biology 7(8), e1000170. [https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000170]
  • Phan, K. L., T. Wager, S. F. Taylor and I. Liberzon. 2002. Functional neuroanatomy of emotion: A meta-analysis of emotion activation studies in PET and fMRI. NeuroImage 16(2), 331-348. [https://doi.org/10.1006/nimg.2002.1087]
  • Phillips, C. I., C. R. Sears and P. M. Pexman. 2012. An embodied semantic processing effect on eye gaze during sentence reading. Language and Cognition 4, 99-114. [https://doi.org/10.1515/langcog-2012-0006]
  • Price, C. J. 2012. A review and synthesis of the first 20 years of PET and fMRI studies of heard speech, spoken language, and reading. NeuroImage 62(2), 816-847. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.04.062]
  • Pulvermüller, F. 2005. Brain mechanisms linking language and action. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 6(7), 576-582. [https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1706]
  • Pylyshyn, Z. 1984. Computation and Cognition. MIT Press. [https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/2004.001.0001]
  • Raposo, A., H. E. Moss, E. A. Stamatakis and L. K. Tyler. 2009. Modulation of motor, premotor cortices by actions, action words, and action sentences. Neuropsychologia 47, 388-396. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.09.017]
  • Semin, G. R. and E. R. Smith. 2008. Embodied Grounding: Social, Cognitive, Affective, and Neuroscientific Approaches. Cambridge University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511805837]
  • Siakaluk, P. D., P. M. Pexman, L. Aguilera, W. J. Owen and C. R. Sears. 2008a. Evidence for the activation of sensorimotor information during visual word recognition: The body-object interaction effect. Cognition 106. 433-443. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2006.12.011]
  • Siakaluk, P. D., P. M. Pexman, C. R. Sears, K. Wilson, K. Locheed and W. J. Owen. 2008b. The benefits of sensorimotor knowledge: Body-object interaction facilitates semantic processing. Cognitive Science 32, 591-605. [https://doi.org/10.1080/03640210802035399]
  • Smith, E. E. 1978. Theories of semantic memory, In W. K. Estes, ed., Handbook of Learning and Cognitive Processes, Vol. 6, 1-52, Erlbaum.
  • Tillotson, S. M., P. D. Siakaluk and P. M. Pexman. 2008. Body-object interaction ratings for 1,618 monosyllabic nouns. Behavior Research Methods 40, 1075-1078. [https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.4.1075]
  • Wellsby, M. and P. M. Pexman. 2014. The influence of bodily experience on children’s language processing. Topics Cognitive Science 6(3), 425-441. [https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12092]
  • Willems, R. M., P. Hagoort and D. Casasanto. 2010. Body-specific representations of action verbs: Neural evidence from right- and left-handers. Psychological Science 21(1), 67-74. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797609354072]
  • Wilson, M. 1988. The MRC psycholinguistic database: Machine readable dictionary, Version 2. Behavioural Research Methods, Instruments and Computers 20, 6-11. [https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03202594]