@misc{WinterMatlockShakietal.2015,
  author    = {Winter, Bodo and Matlock, Teenie and Shaki, Samuel and Fischer, Martin H.},
  title     = {Mental number space in three dimensions},
  series = {Neuroscience \& biobehavioral reviews : official journal of the International Behavioral Neuroscience Society},
  volume    = {57},
  journal   = {Neuroscience \& biobehavioral reviews : official journal of the International Behavioral Neuroscience Society},
  publisher = {Elsevier},
  address   = {Oxford},
  issn      = {0149-7634},
  doi       = {10.1016/j.neubiorev.2015.09.005},
  pages     = {209 -- 219},
  year      = {2015},
  abstract  = {A large number of experimental findings from neuroscience and experimental psychology demonstrated interactions between spatial cognition and numerical cognition. In particular, many researchers posited a horizontal mental number line, where small numbers are thought of as being to the left of larger numbers. This review synthesizes work on the mental association between space and number, indicating the existence of multiple spatial mappings: recent research has found associations between number and vertical space, as well as associations between number and near/far space. We discuss number space in three dimensions with an eye on potential origins of the different number mappings, and how these number mappings fit in with our current knowledge of brain organization and brain-culture interactions. We derive novel predictions and show how this research fits into a general view of cognition as embodied, grounded and situated. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Michl2019,
  author    = {Michl, Diana},
  title     = {Speedy Metonymy, Tricky Metaphor, Irrelevant Compositionality: How Nonliteralness Affects Idioms in Reading and Rating},
  series = {Journal of psycholinguistic research},
  volume    = {48},
  journal   = {Journal of psycholinguistic research},
  number    = {6},
  publisher = {Springer},
  address   = {New York},
  issn      = {0090-6905},
  doi       = {10.1007/s10936-019-09658-7},
  pages     = {1285 -- 1310},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {It is widely acknowledged that fixed expressions such as idioms have a processing advantage over non-idiomatic language. While many idioms are metaphoric, metonymic, or even literal, the effect of varying nonliteralness in their processing has not been much researched yet. Theoretical and empirical findings suggest that metonymies are easier to process than metaphors but it is unclear whether this applies to idioms. Two self-paced reading experiments test whether metonymic, metaphoric, or literal idioms have a greater processing advantage over non-idiomatic control sentences, and whether this is caused by varying nonliteralness. Both studies find that metonymic and literal idioms are read significantly faster than controls, while the advantage for metaphoric idioms is only tenuous. Only experiment 2 finds literal idioms to be read fastest of all. As compositionality of the idioms cannot account for these findings, some effect of nonliteralness is suggested, together with idiomaticity and the sentential context.},
  language  = {en}
}