A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis of Spatial Interference From Linguistic Cues: Beyond Petrova et al. (2018)

Estes, Verges, and Barsalou (2008) demonstrated a spatial interference effect, in which linguistic cues with implicit spatial associations (e.g., “bird”) hindered identification of an unrelated visual stimulus (e.g., “X”) at the implied location (e.g., at the top of a display).¹ This effect, though counterintuitive, fits within a broader literature of visuospatial interference from linguistic cues (e.g., Bergen, Lindsay, Matlock, & Narayanan, 2007; Gozli, Chasteen, & Pratt, 2013; Richardson, Spivey, Barsalou, & McRae, 2003; Verges & Duffy, 2009). Most researchers explain spatial interference in terms of perceptual simulation (Barsalou, 1999): The linguistic cue evokes a subconscious mental image of the denoted object or event in its associated location, thereby visually masking (i.e., perceptually competing with) the target stimulus and delaying its identification. Recent alternative accounts have attributed spatial interference to more holistic event simulations (Ostarek & Vigliocco, 2017) or to conflicting semantic and spatial codes (Amer, Gozli, & Pratt, 2017; Estes, Verges, & Adelman, 2015).