g., there were five DNA Damage inhibitor total items expressing the range covering big, medium, and small). In our study, English- and Mandarin-speakers mapped these stimuli to an unlabelled vertical scale. Most people mapped dimensional endpoints in similar ways; using size as a standard, we found that the majority of participants mapped the clearest, most complex, and darkest items to the same end of the vertical scale as they mapped the biggest items. This indicates that all four

dimensions have a weighted or unmarked end (i.e., all are directional or polar). The strong similarities in polarity across language groups contrasted with group differences on a lexical task, for which there was little cross-linguistic

agreement about which comparative words to use to describe stimulus pairs (e.g., bigger vs. smaller). Thus, we found no evidence in this study that the perception of these dimensions is influenced by language.”
“Recent research suggests that visual field (VF) asymmetry effects in visual recognition may be influenced by information distribution within the stimuli for the recognition task in addition to hemispheric processing differences: Stimuli with more information this website on the left have a right VF (RVF) advantage because the left part is closer to the centre, where the highest visual acuity is obtained. It remains unclear whether visual complexity distribution of the stimuli also has similar modulation effects. Here we used Chinese characters with contrasting structuresleft-heavy, symmetric, and right-heavy, in terms of either visual complexity of components or information distribution defined by location of

the phonetic componentand examined participants’ naming performance. We found that left-heavy characters had the largest RVF advantage, followed by symmetric and right-heavy characters; this effect was only observed in characters that contrasted in information distribution, in which information for pronunciation was skewed to the phonetic component, but not in those that contrasted only in visual complexity distribution and had no phonetic component. This result provides strong evidence for the influence of information distribution within the stimuli on VF asymmetry Cytidine deaminase effects; in contrast, visual complexity distribution within the stimuli does not have similar modulation effects.”
“Age-of-acquisition (AoA) effects are such that early-acquired items are more quickly recognized and produced than later acquired items. In this laboratory analogue, participants were trained to name a group of Greeble pictures with a novel nonsense name. We manipulated order of acquisition of the stimuli: Half of the stimuli were presented from the onset of training (early acquired) whilst the other half were introduced later in the training schedule (late acquired).