What is the connection between the cultural evolution of a language and the rapid processing response to that language in the brains of individual learners? In an iterated communication study that was conducted previously, participants were asked to communicate temporal concepts such as “tomorrow,” “day after,” “year,” and “past” using vertical movements recorded on a touch screen. Over time, participants developed simple artificial ‘languages’ that used space metaphorically to communicate in nuanced ways about time. Some conventions appeared rapidly and universally (e.g., using larger vertical movements to convey greater temporal durations). Other conventions required extensive social interaction and exhibited idiosyncratic variation (e.g., using vertical location to convey past or future). Here we investigate whether the brain's response during acquisition of such a language reflects the process by which the language's conventions originally evolved. We recorded participants' EEG as they learned one of these artificial space-time languages. Overall, the brain response to this artificial communication system was language-like, with, for instance, violations to the system's conventions eliciting an N400-like component. Over the course of learning, participants' brain responses developed in ways that paralleled the process by which the language had originally evolved, with early neural sensitivity to violations of a rapidly-evolving universal convention, and slowly developing neural sensitivity to an idiosyncratic convention that required slow social negotiation to emerge. This study opens up exciting avenues of future work to disentangle how neural biases influence learning and transmission in the emergence of structure in language.

Shaking hands is a fundamental form of social interaction. The current study used high-definition cameras during a university graduation ceremony to examine the temporal sequencing of eye contact and shaking hands. Analyses revealed that mutual gaze always preceded shaking hands. A follow up investigation manipulated gaze when shaking hands, and found that participants take significantly longer to accept a handshake when an outstretched hand precedes eye contact. These findings demonstrate that the timing between a person's gaze and their offer to shake hands is critical to how their action is interpreted.

Human communication has a remarkable capacity to describe events that occurred elsewhere and at other times. In particular, when describing complex narratives, speakers must communicate temporal structure using a mixture of words (e.g., “after”), gestures (e.g., pointing rightward for a later event), and discourse structure (e.g., mentioning earlier events first). How do listeners integrate these sources of temporal information to make sense of complex narratives? In two experiments, we systematically manipulated gesture, speech, and orderof-mention to investigate their respective impacts on comprehension of temporal structure. Gesture had a significant effect on interpretations of temporal order. This influence of gesture, however, was weaker than the influence of both speech and order-of-mention. Indeed, in some cases, order-of-mention trumped explicit descriptions in speech; for instance, if ‘earlier’ events were mentioned second, they were sometimes thought to have occurred second. Listeners integrate multiple sources of information to interpret what happened when.

People use space in a variety of ways to structure their thoughts about time. The present report focuses on the different ways that space is employed when reasoning about deictic (past/future relationships) and sequence (earlier/later relationships) time. In the first study, we show that deictic and sequence time are aligned along the lateral axis in a manner consistent with previous work, with past and earlier events associated with left space and future and later events associated with right space. However, the alignment of time with space is different along the sagittal axis. Participants associated future events and earlier events—not later events—with the space in front of their body and past and later events with the space behind, consistent with the sagittal spatial terms (e.g., ahead, in front of) that we use to talk about deictic and sequence time. In the second study, we show that these associations between sequence time and sagittal space are sensitive to person-perspective. This suggests that the particular space-time associations observed in English speakers are influenced by a variety of different spatial properties, including spatial location and perspective.

We test the robustness of American college students’ mental timeline to dual tasks that have interfered with spatial and verbal reasoning in prior work. We focus on the left-right axis for representing sequences of events. We test American college students, who read from left to right. We test for automatic space-time mappings using two established spacetime association tasks. We find that their tendency to associate earlier events with the left side of space and later events with the right remains under conditions of visuospatial and verbal interference. We find this both when participants made time judgments about linguistic and non-linguistic stimuli. We discuss the relationship between these results and those obtained for mental timelines that result from learning new metaphors in language (Hendricks & Boroditsky, 2015), and the effects of the same interference tasks on number tasks (mental number-line and counting; van Dijck et al., 2009; Frank et al., 2012).

People use space to structure their thoughts about time (e.g. Nunez &Cooperrider 2013). In this chapter, we first provide a brief overview of the variousways that we use space to talk, gesture, and reason about deictic and sequence time. We then discuss the strengths and limitations of the differentmethodologies used to study space-time associations. We argue that somemethods are especially useful for documenting the existence of spatial construalsof time, while others are more useful for examining their flexibility. We illustratethis point by describing circumstances under which temporal reasoningdiverges from patterns in both language and gesture.

Humans spatialize time. This occurs within individual minds and also in larger, shared cultural systems like language. Understanding the origins of space-time mappings requires analyses at multiple levels, from initial individual biases to cultural evolution. Here we present a laboratory experiment that simulates the cultural emergence of space-time mappings. Dyads had to communicate about temporal concepts using only a novel, spatial signaling device. Over the course of their interactions, participants rapidly established semiotic systems that mapped systematically between time and space. These semiotic systems exhibited a number of similarities, but also striking idiosyncrasies. By foregrounding the interaction of mechanisms that operate on disparate timescales, laboratory experiments can shed light on the commonalities and variety found in space-time mappings in languages around the world.

Reasoning about bedrock abstract concepts such as time, number, and valence relies on spatial metaphor and often on multiple spatial metaphors for a single concept. Previous research has documented, for instance, both future-in-front and future-to-right metaphors for time in English speakers. It is often assumed that these metaphors, which appear to have distinct experiential bases, remain distinct in online temporal reasoning. In two studies we demonstrate that, contra this assumption, people systematically combine these metaphors. Evidence for this combination was found in both directly elicited (Study 1) and spontaneous co-speech (Study 2) gestures about time. These results provide first support for the hypothesis that the metaphorical representation of time, and perhaps other abstract domains as well, involves the continuous co-activation of multiple metaphors rather than the selection of only one.

Does beat perception rely on the covert use of the motor system? Esther J. Walker (e1walker@cogsci.ucsd.edu) John R. Iversen (jiversen@ucsd.edu) Department of Cognitive Science, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Dr La Jolla, CA 92093-0515 USA Swartz Center for Computational Neuroscience, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Dr La Jolla, CA 92093-0559 USA Benjamin Stillerman (ben.stillerman@tufts.edu) Aniruddh D. Patel (a.patel@tufts.edu) Benjamin K. Bergen (bkbergen@cogsci.ucsd.edu) Department of Psychology Tufts University, 490 Boston Ave Medford, MA 02155 USA Abstract Listening to music often drives people to move along to the beat of that music. Past research has suggested that motor resources are recruited not just to produce a beat, but also to perceive a beat. The present study extends this correlational work and examines whether the motor system plays a functional role in beat perception using a dual-task behavioral paradigm. Wshile performance on a beat perception task was affected by a simultaneous motor task compared to a control task (Experiment 1), pitch perception was not affected (Experiment 2). Furthermore, this effect was mediated by whether or not participants had received formal musical trainings. The results suggest that the motor system may play a functional role in beat perception, even when people are not overtly moving in time to the beat. Keywords: beat perception; pitch perception; motor system; dual-task Introduction When listening to music, people often experience a compelling drive to move along to the beat. Moving along with music appears to be a human universal, appearing in very young children (Drake, Penel, & Bigand, 2000; Kirschner & Tomasello, 2009) and across the world’s cultures (Brown, 2003; Nettl, 2000). Thus, perhaps it’s not surprising that a variety of neuroscientific research suggests a tight link between the auditory and motor systems in rhythm processing (for a review see Zatorre, Chen, & Penhune, 2007). This body of work suggests that the motor system is activated not only during beat production, but also during beat perception, even when an overt movement is not produced. For instance, the perception and production of musical rhythm both activate brain areas implicated in motor processing, including the supplementary motor area (SMA), premotor cortex (PMC), the cerebellum, and the basal ganglia (Grahn & Brett, 2007; Grahn & Rowe, 2009; Grahn, 2009). Furthermore, based on MEG data, Iversen, Repp, and Patel (2009) have suggested that the motor system influences one’s interpretation of the metricality of a sound, even when individuals are not required to move when perceiving a beat. Behavioral research also supports this idea. For example, Phillips-Silver and Trainor found in both infants (2005) and adults (2007) that moving in time Department of Cognitive Science, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Dr La Jolla, CA 92093-0515 USA with a particular musical beat influences one’s perception of that music’s rhythm. However, although studies like these have revealed motor system activity during both production and perception of a musical beat, it is largely unknown whether or not the motor system plays a functional role in beat perception. Is activation in motor areas during beat perception simply the result of associating music with movement (that in some cases is simply not expressed muscularly)? Or does motor activation reflect calculations used to perceive a beat? For instance, perhaps individuals, upon hearing music, use motor planning areas to simulate moving to the beat. This motor activity might then allow an individual to decide whether the music is on or off beat, as put forth by the action simulation for auditory prediction (ASAP) hypothesis (Patel & Iversen, in press). The present pair of studies aims to address this issue using a dual-task behavioral paradigm. In order to investigate the functional role of the motor system in beat perception, we prevented people from moving to the beat (or even thinking about moving to the beat, and presumably from engaging motor planning areas in action simulation) by tying up their motor system with an unrelated secondary motor task. This allowed us to ask whether beat perception is selectively impaired by a simultaneous motor task. If the motor system plays a functional role in beat perception then we would expect to see worse performance on beat perception during a motor task, but no such impairment on a different perceptual task that does not rely as extensively on the motor system. Experiment 1 In Experiment 1, participants listened to clips of music and had to decide whether an overlaid beat track was on or off the beat of the music. Critically, they simultaneously performed one of two secondary tasks, a Motor task, which was designed to occupy the motor system, and a color change detection task that served as a Control. To interfere with the motor system, the Motor task had participants continuously track a pseudo-randomly moving dot on a computer screen with a computer mouse (more details can be found in the methods section). Such visually- guided motor movement is thought to involve many of the areas also implicated in beat perception, including

Origins of time: New insights into the psychological foundations of time Andrea Bender (andrea.bender@psysp.uib.no), Sieghard Beller (sieghard.beller@psysp.uib.no) Julio Santiago (santiago@ugr.es) Department of Psychology University of Granada Department of Psychology University of Bergen Esther Walker 2 (e1walker@cogsci.ucsd.edu), Benjamin Bergen 2 (bkbergen@cogsci.ucsd.edu), Rafael Nunez 2 (nunez@cogsci.ucsd.edu) Tyler Marghetis (tmarghet@ucsd.edu), Katharine Tillman 3 (katillman@ucsd.edu), Mahesh Srinivasan 4 (srinivasan@berkeley.edu), David Barner 3 (barner@ucsd.edu) Daniel Casasanto (casasanto@uchicago.edu) Department of Cognitive Science Department of Psychology University of California, San Diego Department of Psychology University of California, Berkeley Department of Psychology University of Chicago Lera Boroditsky 2 (lera@ucsd.edu) Symposium Moderator Keywords: time, space, abstract thought, metaphor, gesture, cross-cultural variability, development, concepts Introduction Bender and Beller adopt a cross–cultural perspective to examine the role of frames of reference in the conceptualization of time. Marghetis, Tillman, Srinivasan, and Barner explore the development of spatial metaphors for time in children, focusing on spontaneous temporal gestures and their relation to the acquisition of temporal language. Santiago discusses the roles of culture and attention in shaping cross-cultural differences in the conceptualization of time. Walker, Bergen, and Nunez argue that different conceptual models are used for different kinds of temporal reasoning. Finally, Casasanto compares and contrasts existing theories of the origins of interactions between space and time. Boroditsky serves as moderator. What are the origins of our ability to perceive and reason about time? The human experience of time is rich and multifaceted: low-level duration perception on the order of seconds; words (e.g. “hour”) and grammatical features (e.g. tense) that encode specific aspects of temporal experience; and high-level reasoning about duration, sequences, and causality. While some of these temporal abilities are present early in development (e.g. duration perception), others do not emerge for many years (e.g. the semantics of temporal words like “hour” or “yesterday”). There is an active debate about the origins of these varied facets of temporal cognition (e.g., Nunez & Cooperrider, 2013; Evans, 2013; Casasanto & Bottini, 2013). For instance, what are their evolutionary and developmental sources? Do certain temporal capacities distinguish us from non-human animals? Is our understanding of time built on a spatial foundation, or do both space and time rely on a shared, domain-general representational system? The time is ripe for an integrated approach to this foundational human capacity. This symposium brings together researchers whose work has presented varied perspectives on the psychological origins of time, from perception to conceptualization (e.g., Bender & Beller, in press; Casasanto & Bottini, 2013; Santiago et al, 2007; Nunez & Cooperrider, 2013; Boroditsky & Gaby, 2010). The researchers hail from a variety of backgrounds, including anthropology, linguistics, psychology, and cognitive science, and approach the origins of time from the perspective of human development, cross- cultural variability, and cognitive processing. The five talks will discuss recent evidence from development, language, culture, and behavior, followed by a brief moderated discussion. Questions on temporal Frames of Reference (FoRs): Principles, preferences, and possible grounding in spatial FoRs (Beller & Bender) When speaking and reasoning about time, people do not only tend to use vocabulary and concepts borrowed from the domain of space, they also engage in similar cognitive processes. Localizing one object in reference to another, for instance, requires one to adopt a specific perspective or “frame of reference” (FoR). The same holds when localizing one event in reference to another. Yet, while research on spatial FoRs has been highly prolific for almost two decades now, research on temporal FoRs is still in its infancy, hampered by a lack of consensus even on basic assumptions: Can spatial FoRs be mapped onto time at all? On which principles should such a mapping and/or the resultant taxonomy of temporal FoRs be based? How should findings on temporal references be interpreted? And what does this reveal about the origins of temporal reasoning? In this talk, we critically discuss current problems in conceptualization, but also highlight the potential of a unified taxonomy of spatio-temporal FoRs.

While we often talk about time using spatial terms, experimental investigation of space-time associations has focused primarily on the space in front of the participant. This has had two consequences: the disregard of the space behind the participant (exploited in language and gesture) and the creation of potential task demands produced by spatialized manual button-presses. We introduce and test a new paradigm that uses auditory stimuli and vocal responses to address these issues. Participants made temporal judgments about deictic or sequential relationships presented auditorily along a body-centered sagittal or transversal axis. Results involving the transversal axis replicated previous work while sagittal axis results were surprising. Deictic judgments did not use the sagittal axis but sequential judgments did, in a previously undocumented way. Participants associated earlier judgments with the space in front of them and later judgments with the space behind them. These findings, using a new approach, provide evidence that different time concepts recruit space differently, mediated by meaning, stimulus modality and response mode.

Later events lie behind her, but not behind you: Compatibility effects for temporal sequences along the sagittal axis depend on perspective Esther J. Walker (e1walker@cogsci.ucsd.edu) Benjamin K. Bergen (bkbergen@cogsci.ucsd.edu) Rafael Nunez (nunez@cogsci.ucsd.edu) Department of Cognitive Science, 9500 Gilman Dr. University of California, San Diego La Jolla, CA 92093-0515 USA Abstract Perspective plays a large role in how we think about space. Does perspective also influence how we think about abstract concepts, such as time, which have been shown to be closely associated with how we think about space? Linguistic patterns suggest that speakers talk about temporal sequences from two perspectives: field-based and ego perspective (Moore, 2011). However, the psychological reality of these mappings beyond their use in language is unclear. The present study examines whether sequential reasoning recruits the sagittal (front-back) axis differently, depending on the perspective adopted for the task. We manipulated perspective by using pronouns meant to evoke a field-based or ego perspective (“her” vs “your” high school graduation, respectively). Participants made earlier- than or later-than judgments about event sequences using a mouse in front of or behind their body. We observed an interaction between pronoun, temporal reference, and response location. Participants map space onto time differently depending on the frame of reference from which temporal sequences are interpreted. Keywords: spatial construals of time; perspective; pronouns; compatibility effects; sequence time Introductions Spatial perspective plays an important role in how people think about and comprehend the world around them (e.g., Tversky, 2003, 2005) and humans are quite flexible in the spatial perspectives they are able to adopt. Indeed, individuals are not only able to think about and interpret scenes from their own perspective, but are also able to adapt their perspective to that of another person (Tversky & Hard, 2009). Furthermore, language can also influence the perspective from which one interprets a scene. For example, the use of a single pronoun influences the perspective from which readers simulate actions described in narratives (Brunye, Ditman, Mahoney, Augustyn, & Taylor, 2009). Brunye et al. (2009) demonstrated that when participants read sentences such as “You are cutting the tomato” versus “He is cutting the tomato”, they were faster to match the sentence to the corresponding picture if the pronoun matched the spatial perspective from which the picture was taken. As such, it appears that one’s embodied simulation of actions in the world is sensitive to the perspective from which those actions are described. However, is it also the case that the use of different pronouns influences the perspective from which one thinks about more abstract concepts, which have been suggested to obtain their conceptual structure from our embodied experience of moving through and interacting with the world around us (e.g., Lakoff & Johnson, 1980)? One candidate that may help provide insight into such a question is time—the conceptualization of which appears tightly tied to how we think about space. Across the world's languages, people use space to talk about time. Nevertheless, there's diversity in precisely how languages spatialize time—what axis they use, and how they map time onto that axis (Clark, 1973; Haspelmath, 1997; Nunez & Sweetser, 2006). Moreover, the use of space to structure time isn't merely a matter of language, it's also a matter of thought—a large literature suggests that conceptualizations of time are also strongly linked to thought about space (e.g., Casasanto & Boroditsky, 2008). Indeed, from linguists to philosophers to psychologists, scholars have discussed at length the ways in which time recruits spatial structure. This research has produced a large body of findings in language (Clark, 1973; Traugott, 1975; Moore, 2006; 2011), gesture (Cooperrider & Nunez, 2009; Casasanto & Jasmin, 2012), and psychological experiments (Santiago et al., 2007; Torralbo et al., 2007; Weger & Pratt, 2008; Ouellet et al., 2010). Scholars have long noted that there exist at least two distinct spatial construals of time: deictic and sequence (McTaggart, 1908; Nunez & Sweetser, 2006). Deictic time conceptualization reflects past/future relationships and centers around the present moment, or now, as a reference point. Sequence time, on the other hand, does not use “now” as a reference point. Instead, one event becomes the reference point for another event, capturing “earlier” or “later” relationships in time. Experimental research on this topic has often overlooked this distinction, pooling deictic with sequential judgments, but because the two types of time judgment relate to space differently (Casasanto & Jasmin, 2012; Walker, Bergen, & Nunez, 2013), the present study will focus only on sequence time. Sequence time has been shown to recruit the transversal (left-right) axis in a systematic manner. In gesture, English speakers often sweep their hand to their left when talking about earlier events and to the right when talking about later events (Cooperrider & Nunez, 2009; Casasanto & Jasmin, 2012). Furthermore, space-time compatibility effects are widely reported for this axis in a variety of languages (e.g., in Spanish: Santiago, Lupianez, Perez, & Funes, 2007; in

Current theory suggests that interpersonal synchrony is an important social behavior in that it not only serves as a form of "social glue," but it also arises automatically in a social context. Theorists suggest potential mechanisms for interpersonal synchrony, ranging from a "low-level" social-perceptual system account to a "high-level" social-motivational explanation. Past studies that suggest synchrony can be influenced by social factors do not discriminate between these accounts. The current investigation seeks to isolate the effect of the high-level social system on interpersonal synchrony by investigating the effects of spatial proximity on unintentional coordinated tapping between two naïve participants. Dyads performed a synchronization-continuation task either in the same room, in different rooms, or in different rooms but with the ability to hear each other tap. Participant taps were represented by a box that flashed on the monitor to control visual information across all three conditions. Same-room dyads had increased coordination over different-room dyads, whereas dyads that shared audio but were in different rooms showed an intermediate level of coordination. The present study demonstrates that shared space, independent of perceptual differences in stimuli, can increase unintentional coordinated tapping.

The present study examined the influence of a human or computer “partner” on the production of fillers (um and uh) during a question and answer task. Experiment 1 investigated whether or not responding to a human partner as opposed to a computer partner results in a higher rate of filler production. Participants produced many more fillers when responding to a human. Experiment 2 tested the possibility that this large effect was driven by the mere presence of another person. It was not. There was, however, a small effect of human presence on fillers, a novel result. That individuals modulate their filler use in response to the nature of their speech partner is a critical piece of evidence in favor of the filler-for-partner hypothesis. Collectively, our data provide convergent support for the theoretical position that fillers are not solely produced as the result of difficulties in speech planning or production, but they also play a functional role in the communicative interaction between speakers and listeners.

It has been suggested that pedestrians listening to personal music devices (PMD) are more likely to be involved in accidents than those not listening to PMDs. Though it has been demonstrated that pedestrians on cell phones exhibit less cautionary behaviour when street crossing (Hatfield and Murphy, 2007; Nasar et al., 2008; Stavrinos et al., 2009), little research has been conducted with PMD users. In the present study, cautionary behaviour (e.g., looking before crossing a road) was observed and recorded for pedestrians with or without PMDs. Amongst males, pedestrians listening to PMDs displayed more looking behaviour than those not listening to PMDs. Females showed no differences between the two conditions. Thus, unlike cell phones, PMDs do not decrease the cautionary behaviour of pedestrians. This suggests that cell phones and PMDs are two different types of distractions, and this needs to be taken into account when developing methods to prevent pedestrian accidents in the future. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

How do people distribute their visual attention in the natural environment? We and our colleagues have usually addressed this question by showing pictures, photographs or videos of natural scenes under controlled conditions and recording participants' eye movements as they view them. In the present study, we investigated whether people distribute their gaze in the same way when they are immersed and moving in the world compared to when they view video clips taken from the perspective of a walker. Participants wore a mobile eye tracker while walking to buy a coffee, a trip that required a short walk outdoors through the university campus. They subsequently watched first-person videos of the walk in the lab. Our results focused on where people directed their eyes and their head, what objects were gazed at and when attention-grabbing items were selected. Eye movements were more centralised in the real world, and locations around the horizon were selected with head movements. Other pedestrians, the path, and objects in the distance were looked at often in both the lab and the real world. However, there were some subtle differences in how and when these items were selected. For example, pedestrians close to the walker were fixated more often when viewed on video than in the real world. These results provide a crucial test of the relationship between real behaviour and eye movements measured in the lab.

Interactions between number and space, exemplified by the SNARC (Spatial-Numerical Association of Response Codes) effect, are often taken as evidence for a privileged spatial representation of number. Naturally, research on the spatial representation of number has typically focused on spatial tasks. But in order to make inferences about numerical cognition more generally, one must take care to tease apart spatial mental representation from spatial action. The present study asked participants to judge the relative magnitude of numbers, and to respond by producing sounds of different pitches. There was a significant interaction between pitch and number magnitude, analogous to the interaction between space and number: participants were faster to produce “high” pitches in response to “high” numbers. Moreover, the strength of this effect was unrelated to the strength of the traditional SNARC. We argue that these results undermine the privileged status of space as a representational substrate for number.