ArticlePsychological research2025
Grounded cognition and the representation of momentum: abstract concepts modulate mislocalization.
Article in Psychological research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Impact of Verb Speed on the Processing of Goal-Oriented Visual Scenes.Journal of cognition · 2026Article
- Issues in Grounded Cognition and How to Solve Them - the Minimalist Account.Journal of cognition · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Literature on grounded cognition argues that mental representations of concepts, even abstract concepts, involve modal simulations. These modalities are typically assumed to reside within the body, such as in the sensorimotor system. A recent proposal argues that physical invariants, such as momentum or gravity, can also be substrates in which concepts can be grounded, expanding the assumed limits of grounding beyond the body. We here experimentally assessed this proposal by exploiting the representational momentum effect and the abstract concept of success. If success is grounded in the physical invariant momentum, the representational momentum effect should be larger for successful targets. We tested this hypothesis across four experiments (three pre-registered). In a surprising finding, we find hints that large trial numbers may hinder being able to find a representational momentum effect, which should be further investigated in future research. Regarding the central hypothesis, although only one experiment found statistically significant support, the effect tended toward the same direction in the three others as well. In order to draw robust conclusions about the results, we performed a mini meta, which aggregates the effects and inference statistics across the N = 271 participants. Across the four experiments, this effect was statistically significant, suggesting evidence in favor of the central hypothesis. These results should be interpreted with caution as there was inconsistency across experiments, suggesting the magnitude of the effect is small, and when asked who they believe moved faster, participants did not reliably indicate the successful target.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.