728127
research-article2018
PSSXXX10.1177/0956797617728127Spatial Congruency Effects Exist, Just Not for WordsPetrova et al.
Commentary
Spatial Congruency Effects Exist, Just
Not for Words: Looking Into Estes,
Verges, and Barsalou (2008)
Anna Petrova1, Eduardo Navarrete1, Caterina Suitner1,
Simone Sulpizio2,3,4, Michael Reynolds5, Remo Job2, and
Francesca Peressotti  1
1
Dipartimento di Psicologia dello Sviluppo e della Socializzazione, University of Padova; 2Dipartimento di
Psicologia e Scienze Cognitive, University of Trento; 3Fondazione Marica De Vincenzi ONLUS, Trento, Italy;
4
Facoltà di Psicologia, Università Vita-Salute San Raffaele; and 5Department of Psychology, Trent University
Received 11/6/16; Revision accepted 7/31/17
Estes, Verges, and Barsalou (2008) reported that reading
a word with a spatial connotation (e.g., sky) interfered
with the subsequent identification of an unrelated
visual stimulus (letter X or O) presented in a semanti-
cally related portion of the screen (location-cue congru-
ency, or LCC, effect). In a series of nine experiments,
we attempted to obtain this effect but met with no
success. Rather, we obtained other expected spatial and
semantic effects highlighting the robustness of our pro-
cedures. We contend that the LCC effect needs to be
taken with great caution.
The LCC effect described by Estes et al. has impor-
tant implications for theories of language processing
because it suggests that, according to the embodied
view of cognition, the activation of motor and action
systems is an essential aspect of language processing
(Šetić & Domijan, 2007; Yaxley & Zwaan, 2007; for
recent debate, see Barsalou, 2016; Mahon & Hickok,
2016). Although several studies explored the influence
of spatial information conveyed by language on subse-
quent perceptual tasks (for a review, see Louwerse,
Hutchinson, Tillman, & Recchia, 2015), Estes et  al.’s
results (Experiment 3) are particularly relevant for sev-
eral reasons. The observation of an interference effect
is important because it cannot be explained by assum-
ing that both the word and the target activate abstract
spatial concepts at a higher semantic level, since if that
were the case, facilitatory effects should be predicted
(as observed in other studies; e.g., Chasteen, Burdzy,
& Pratt, 2010; Meier & Robinson, 2004). Furthermore,
interference was observed despite the words being pre-
sented in isolation, with no preceding context, no task
to be performed on them, and short delays between
ASSOCIATION FOR
PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE
Psychological Science
2018, Vol. 29(7) 1195­–1199
© The Author(s) 2018
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0956797617728127
https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617728127
www.psychologicalscience.org/PS
the cue word and the target stimulus. Therefore, given
that the effect was obtained without explicit or implicit
reference to the spatial properties of the words, and
given that there was no benefit to processing them, the
interference effect suggests that spatial information is
mandatorily and rapidly activated during language
processing.
Even though the LCC effect has been reported in
other studies (Estes, Verges, & Adelman, 2015; Verges
& Duffy, 2009) and by different laboratories (Gozli,
Chasteen, & Pratt, 2013; see Table 1), our attempts to
obtain the effect repeatedly failed. The initial experi-
ments differed slightly from those reported by Estes
et  al. (2008). Subsequent experiments moved toward
the original experiment, attempting to identify the
boundary conditions of the effect. In order to demon-
strate the sensitivity of experiments, we measured two
spatial effects not related to the cue words but to the
position of the targets and the response keys. The
feature-integration effect concerns the relation between
target features and response on consecutive trials
(Hommel, Proctor, & Vu, 2004). Provided that targets
have two basic features, (a) spatial location (up or
down) and (b) target type (X or O), we expected
quicker responses on consecutive stimuli sharing both
features (i.e., the same targets appearing in the same
location) or in the case of a complete mismatch (i.e.,
different targets in different locations) compared with
Corresponding Author:
Francesca Peressotti, Università di Padova, Dipartimento di Psicologia
dello Sviluppo e della Socializzazione, Via Venezia, 8, 35131 Padova, Italy
E-mail: francesca.peressotti@unipd.it
1196 Petrova et al.

Table 1.  Methodological Details of Previous Studies

Number Word Delay Response

Experiment of words duration (ms) (ms) Targets keys N Language Fillers Effect
Estes, Verges, & Barsalou (2008), Exp. 3 60 100 50 X, O X, O 30 English Yes (60) LCC
Verges & Duffy (2009), Exp. 1 32 100 50 X, O X, O 25 English Yes (32) LCC
Verges & Duffy (2009), Exp. 2 (nouns) 64 100 50 X, O X, O 48 English Yes (64) LCC
Verges & Duffy (2009), Exp. 2 (verbs) 64 100 50 X, O X, O 48 English Yes (64) LCC
Gozli, Chasteen, & Pratt (2013), Exp. 3A 50 Until response 200–400 X, O /, Z 27 English Yes (40) LCC
Gozli et al. (2013), Exp. 3B 50 Until response 800–1,200 X, O /, Z 27 English Yes (40) LCC
Petrova et al. (2013) 64 100 100 C, M C, Ma 24 Italian No LCC
Estes, Verges, & Adelman (2015), Exp. 3 128 100 50 X, O X, O 52 English No LCC
Estes et al. (2015), Exp. 4 128 100 50 X, O X, O 39 English No LCC

Note: LCC = location-cue congruency.

a
These keys were covered by stickers reporting “X” and “O,” respectively.

trials sharing only one feature (e.g., the same targets in
switched locations). Further, in some experiments, we
used the keys O and X of the keyboard, as Estes et al.
did; these are vertically displaced and allowed measur-
ing the Simon effect, which concerns the relation
between target and response-key positions. Finally, we
tested the sensitivity of our procedure to semantic
effects by using a semantic-priming paradigm with the
cue words as primes and targets.
Method
Three hundred five participants were tested at three
universities. For all experiments, half of the cue words
referred to the upper location, and half referred to the
lower. High and low cue words were matched for
length and frequency, and spatial connotation was rated
by independent groups of participants. Multiple word
sets were used across experiments (see the Supplemen-
tal Material available online). In each trial, a cue word
appeared at the center of the screen, and after a delay
(stimulus onset asynchrony, SOA), the target appeared
either above or below fixation until participants’
response. Participants were instructed to identify the
subsequently presented target quickly and accurately
by pressing the appropriate key. Cue-word type, target
location, target type, and response keys were fully
crossed in each experiment.
In Experiments 1 to 3, each cue word was repeated
in each condition. In Experiments 4 to 9, the assignment
of cue word to condition was counterbalanced across
participants. In Experiments 1 to 3, three SOAs were
used, whereas a single SOA was used in Experiments
4 to 9. Catch trials were added in Experiments 2 and 3
to assess whether paying attention to the words was
required for obtaining the LCC effect. In order to paral-
lel the procedure used by Estes et al., we included filler
words with no spatial connotation in Experiments 5 to
9. In Experiment 5 and 9, the response keys were “X”
and “O” (horizontally not aligned on the keyboard) in
order to exactly replicate the original settings. This
allowed us to examine the Simon effect, given that
targets (X and O) and response keys (“X” and “O”) were
either spatially congruent or spatially incongruent, as
in Estes et  al. (2008). In all other experiments, the
response keys were horizontally aligned. In Experiment
7, the instructions stressed that the words represented
“high” and “low” concepts (biased instruction); in
Experiment 8, a group of participants received biased
instructions, and another group received neutral instruc-
tions. Experiments 1 to 8 used Italian words, whereas
Experiment 9 used English words. Experiment 10 was
a categorization task (is it a “high” concept or “low”
concept?) in which high and low primes were followed
by either high or low targets. Other details are reported
in Table 2.
Analyses
Analyses were performed on correct response times to
experimental trials after trimming outliers (Van Selst &
Jolicoeur, 1994). For statistical analyses, we used stan-
dard t tests, and model likelihood was assessed with
the Bayes factor.
Results
Results of the present experiments can be seen in Table
2 (more details can be found in the Supplemental Mate-
rial). The LCC effect proved significant only in Experi-
ment 7 (when the relation between the words’ meaning
and target locations was explicit); however, (a) the
small Bayes factor and (b) the failure to replicate the
effect of instructions in Experiment 8 suggest that it
might be a Type I error. Even considering the data from
all experiments together, we did not find the LCC.
Spatial Congruency Effects Exist, Just Not for Words 1197

Table 2.  Methodological Details and Results of the Experiments in the Present Study

Word
Number duration Response
Experiment of words (ms) Delay (ms) Targets keys N Language Fillers Resultsa
Exp. 1 24 150 150, 450, 900 □, ◌ G, Hb 39 Italian No LCC = −0.84 ms,
t = 0.46, BF = 0.05;
FI = −20.04 ms,
t = 8.91***, BF > 10,000
Exp. 2 24 150 150, 450, 900 □, ◌ G, Hb 41 Italian Yes (18) LCC = 2.54 ms,
t = −1.06, BF = 0.10;
FI = −21.82 ms,
t = 9.60***, BF > 10,000
Exp. 3 24 150 150, 450, 900 J, K J, Kb 20 Italian Yes (18) LCC = −3.38 ms,
t = 1.29, BF = 0.20;
FI = −23.38 ms,
t = 9.78***, BF > 10,000
Exp. 4 64 100 100 C, M C, Mc 16 Italian No LCC = 1.04 ms,
t = −0.09, BF = 0.16;
FI = −22.93 ms,
t = 7.36, BF > 10,000
Exp. 5 56 100 50 X, O X, O 20 Italian No LCC = 3.50 ms,
t = −0.86, BF = 0.33;
FI = −35.45 ms,
t = 8.40***, BF > 10,000;
Simon = –23.20 ms,
t = 5.61***, BF > 10,000
Exp. 6 56 100 50 X, O C, Mc 24 Italian Yes (56) LCC = 2.60 ms,
t = −0.42, BF = 0.23;
FI = −38.70 ms,
t = 9.18***, BF > 10,000
Exp. 7 56 100 50 X, O C, Mc 25 Italian Yes (56) LCC = 7.78 ms,
t = −2.04*, BF = 1.67;
FI = –37.16 ms,
t = 8.82***, BF > 10,000
Exp. 8 56 100 50 X, O C, Mc 60 Italian Yes (56) LCC = –2.85 ms,
t = −0.74, BF = 0.24;
FI = –47.59 ms,
t = 8.85***, BF > 10,000
Exp. 9 60 100 50 X, O X, O 40 English Yes (60) LCC = −2.26 ms,
t = 0.47, BF = 0.17;
FI = −37.25 ms,
t = 9.12***, BF > 10,000;
Simon = −20.97 ms,
t = 4.98***, BF > 10,000
Exp. 10 60 100 50 Cue C, M 20 Italian No Priming = −23 ms,
words t = 3.63**, BF > 10,000
Exps. 1–9 285 LCC = 0.36 ms,
t = −0.23, BF > .01

Note: Delay refers to the time between the offset of the cue word and the onset of the target. FI = feature integration; LCC = location-cue
congruency.
a
Approximate Bayes factors (BFs) were computed with the expression exp(ΔBayesian information criterion/2). bThese keys were covered by
stickers reporting “□” and “◌,” respectively. cThese keys were covered by stickers reporting “X” and “O,” respectively.

The feature-integration effect was significant in all
experiments, and the Simon effect was significant in
Experiments 5 and 9. Semantic priming (i.e., faster
responses when prime and target were either both high
or both low concepts) emerged in Experiment 10.
Methodological reasons cannot explain these replica-
tion failures. We can exclude the carryover of a system-
atic mistake because the experiments were run
independently in three laboratories. Artifacts in the
materials are unlikely, given the different stimuli sets.
1198 Petrova et al.

Fig. 1.  Forest plot summarizing the effect sizes of 15 experiments that explored the location-cue congruency (LCC) effect from cue words
presented in isolation (i.e., without context words). The studies were Estes, Verges, and Barsalou (2008); Gozli, Chasteen, and Pratt (2013);
Petrova et al. (2013); Estes, Verges, and Adelman (2015); and the present study. Studies with horizontally aligned (e.g., “C” and “M”) and
vertically aligned (i.e., “X” and “O”) response keys are depicted in black and red, respectively. The size of each square is proportional to the
precision of the estimate. A full description of the meta-analysis is available in the Supplemental Material available online. CI = confidence
interval.

The modulation of instructions seems not critical for Action Editor

obtaining the effect. Also, if it were, this would under-
mine the assumption that activation of spatial informa-
tion is mandatory. Finally, the fact that the LCC effect
did not emerge using English words rules out the
hypothesis of specificities of Italian linguistic and cul-
tural context. The significant semantic-priming effect
rules out the possibility that cue-word presentation
conditions were inadequate for observing semantic
effects. The significant feature-integration and Simon
effects clearly suggest that our experimental conditions
were sensitive to spatial compatibility effects and that
participants did process spatial properties of stimuli.
This also suggests that the complex pattern of spatial
effects due to targets’ and responses’ location should
be carefully considered, as they may be confounded
with the LCC effect. Indeed, in a meta-analysis including
all experiments that have been performed using the
same paradigm as in Experiments 1 to 9, we observed
that the LCC effect size became null if we considered
only those studies in which the response keys were not
vertically dislocated (see Fig. 1). In conclusion, despite
its theoretical relevance, the LCC effect is empirically
unreliable and must be considered with caution.
Ralph Adolphs served as action editor for this article.
Author Contributions
All authors contributed to the conception and design of the
study. Data were collected primarily by A. Petrova, S. Sulpizio,
and M. Reynolds. Statistical analyses were performed by A.
Petrova, E. Navarrete, and C. Suitner. The manuscript was
drafted by F. Peressotti and reviewed by all authors. All authors
approved the final version of the manuscript for submission.
ORCID iD
Francesca Peressotti https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2425-9231
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Michelangelo Vianello for
helpful discussion on replication studies and Daniela Di
Menza for her help in data collection.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared that there were no conflicts of interest
with respect to the authorship or the publication of this
article.
Spatial Congruency Effects Exist, Just Not for Words 1199
Supplemental Material
Additional supporting information can be found at http://
journals.sagepub.com/doi/suppl/10.1177/09567976177
28127
Open Practices
 
All data and materials have been made publicly available via
the Open Science Framework and can be accessed at https://
osf.io/79sqe/. The design and analysis plans for the experiment
was not preregistered. The complete Open Practices Disclosure
for this article can be found at http://journals.sagepub.com/
doi/suppl/10.1177/0956797617728127. This article has received
badges for Open Data and Open Materials. More information
about the Open Practices badges can be found at http://www
.psychologicalscience.org/publications/badges.
References
Barsalou, L. W. (2016). On staying grounded and avoiding
quixotic dead ends. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23,
1122–1142.
Chasteen, A. L., Burdzy, D. C., & Pratt, J. (2010). Thinking
of God moves attention. Neuropsychologia, 48, 627–
630.
Estes, Z., Verges, M., & Adelman, J. S. (2015). Words, objects,
and locations: Perceptual matching explains spatial inter-
ference and facilitation. Journal of Memory and Language,
84, 167–189.
Estes, Z., Verges, M., & Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Head up, foot
down: Object words orient attention to the objects’ typical
location. Psychological Science, 19, 93–97.
Gozli, D. G., Chasteen, A. L., & Pratt, J. (2013). The cost and
benefit of implicit spatial cues for visual attention. Journal
of Experimental Psychology: General, 142, 1028–1046.
Hommel, B., Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K.-P. L. (2004). A feature-
integration account of sequential effects in the Simon
task. Psychological Research, 68, 1–17.
Louwerse, M. M., Hutchinson, S., Tillman, R., & Recchia, G.
(2015). Effect size matters: The role of language statis-
tics and perceptual simulation in conceptual processing.
Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30, 430–447.
Mahon, B. Z., & Hickok, G. (2016). Arguments about the
nature of concepts: Symbols, embodiment, and beyond.
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23, 941–958.
Meier, B. P., & Robinson, M. D. (2004). Why the sunny side
is up: Associations between affect and vertical position.
Psy­cho­logical Science, 15, 243–247.
Petrova, A., Sulpizio, S., Navarrete, E., Job, R., Suitner, C.,
& Peressotti, F. (2013, August 29–September 1). Foot
or X down? Response compatibility but no effects of the
object’s typical location. Several failures to replicate
Estes, Verges & Barsalou (2008). Poster presented at the
18th Conference of the European Society for Cognitive
Psychology (ESCOP), Budapest, Hungary.
Šetić, M., & Domijan, D. (2007). The influence of vertical
spatial orientation on property verification. Language and
Cognitive Processes, 22, 297–312.
Van Selst, M. V., & Jolicoeur, P. (1994). A solution to the
effect of sample size on outlier elimination. The Quarterly
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47, 631–650.
Verges, M., & Duffy, S. (2009). Spatial representations elicit
dual-coding effects in mental imagery. Cognitive Science,
33, 1157–1172.
Yaxley, R. H., & Zwaan, R. A. (2007). Simulating visibility dur-
ing language comprehension. Cognition, 105, 229–236.