Dataset Open Access

Supplementary material for the paper "The Development of Metaphor Comprehension and its Relationhip with Executive Function"

Carriedo, N.; Corral, A.; Montoro, P. R.; Herrero, L.; Ballestrino, P.; Sebastián, I.

Contact person(s)
This work was financially supported by project MICINN EDU2011-22699.

This the is Data Supplement for the article "The Development of Metaphor Comprehension and its Relationhip with Executive Function" submitted to PLoS ONEJournal 2015. Primary contact for data associated with this article:Nuria Carriedo

Files (49.7 kB)
Name Size
49.7 kB Download
  • Billow R.M. A cognitive developmental study of metaphor comprehension. Developmental Psychology. 1975; 11: 415–423.

  • Blasko, D. G. Only the tip of the iceberg: Who understands what about metaphor? Journal of Pragmatics.1999; 31(12): 1675-1683.

  • Blasko, D. G., & Connine, C. M. Effects of familiarity and aptness on metaphor processing. Journal of experimental psychology: Learning, memory, and cognition. 1993; 19(2): 295- 308.

  • Bowdle, B., & D. Gentner. The career of metaphor. Psychological Review. 2005; 112:193–216.

  • Carriedo, N., Corral, P., Montoro, P., Herrero, L., & Rucián, M. (2014). Development of the updating executive function: From 7-year-olds to young adults. Manuscript submitted.

  • Chiappe, D. L., & Chiappe, P. The role of working memory in metaphor production and comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language. 2007; 56(2): 172-188.

  • Christ, S. E., Steiner, R. D., Grange, D. K., Abrams, R. A., & White, D. A. Inhibitory control in children with phenylketonuria. Developmental Neuropsychology. 2006; 30(3): 845-864.

  • Cometa, M. S., Eson, M. E. Logical operations and metaphor interpretation: A Piagetian model. Child Development. 1978, 49: 649-659.

  • Coney, J., & Lange, A. Automatic and attentional processes in the comprehension of unfamiliar metaphors. Current Psychology. 2006; 25(2): 93-119.

  • De Beni, R., & Palladino, P. Decline in working memory updating through ageing: Intrusion error analyses. Memory. 2004; 12(1): 75-89.

  • Eriksen, B. A., & Eriksen, C. W. Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception & Psychophysics. 1974; 16(1): 143-149.

  • Friedman, N. P., & Miyake, A. The relations among inhibition and interference control functions: A latent-variable analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 2004; 133(1): 101-135. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.133.1.101.

  • Friedman, N. P., Miyake, A., Young, S. E., DeFries, J. C., Corley, R. P., & Hewitt, J. K.. Individual differences in executive functions are almost entirely genetic in origin. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 2008; 137(2): 201-225.

  • Gentner, D. Metaphor as structure mapping: The relational shift. Child development. 1988; 59: 47-59.

  • Gentner, D., Falkenhainer, B., & Skorstad, J. Viewing metaphor as analogy. In D.H. Helman (Ed.), Analogical reasoning: Perspectives of artificial intelligence, cognitive science and philosophy. Dordrecht, Holland: Kluwer; 1988. p. 171-177.

  • Gernsbacher, M. A., Keysar, B., Robertson, R. R. W., & Werner, N. K. The role of inhibition and enhancement in understanding metaphors. Journal of Memory and Language. 2001; 45: 433–450.

  • Glucksberg, S., & B. Keysar. Understanding metaphorical comparisons: Beyond similarity. Psychological Review. 1990; 97: 3–18.

  • Glucksberg, S., McGlone, M. S., & Manfredi, D. Property attribution in metaphor comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language.1997; 36: 50–67.

  • Glucksberg, S., Newsome, M. R., & Goldvarg, Y. Inhibition of the literal: Filtering metaphor-irrelevant information during metaphor comprehension. Metaphor & Symbol. 2001; 16: 277–293.

  • Van Herwegen, J. , Dimitriou, D., Rundblad, G. Development of novel metaphor and metonymy comprehension in typically developing children and Williams syndrome. Research in developmental disabilities. 2013; 34(4):1300-1311.

  • Huizinga, M.; Dolan, C.; Van Der Molen, M. Age-related change in executive function: Developmental trends and a latent variable analysis. Neuropsychologia. 2006; 44 (11): 2017-2036.

  • Johnson, J., & Pascual-Leone, J. Developmental levels of processing in metaphor interpretation. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. 1989; 48(1): 1-31.

  • Johnson, J., & Rosano, T. Relation of cognitive style to metaphor interpretation and second language proficiency. Applied Psycholinguistics.1993; 14: 159-175.

  • Kazmerski, V. A., Blasko, D. G., & Dessalegn, B. ERP and behavioral evidence of individual differences in metaphor comprehension. Memory & Cognition. 2003; 31(5): 673-689.

  • Keil, F.Conceptual domains and the acquisition of metaphor. Cognitive Development.1986; 1: 73-96.

  • Lechuga, M. T., Moreno, V., Pelegrina, S., Gómez-Ariza, C. J., & Bajo, M. T. Age differences in memory control: Evidence from updating and retrieval-practice tasks. Acta Psychologica. 2006; 123(3): 279-298.

  • Mashal, N., & Kasirer, A. Thinking maps enhance metaphoric competence in children with autism and learning disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities. 2011; 32: 2045–2054.

  • Mednick, S. A. The associate basis of creativity. Psychological Review, 1962; 69: 220-232.

  • Miller, G. A. Images and models, similes and metaphors. In A. Ortony(Ed.), Metaphor and thought Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1993. p. 357-400.

  • Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “frontal lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology. 2000; 41(1): 49-100.

  • Mood, A. M. Partitioning variance in multiple regression analyses as a tool for developing learning models. American Educational Research Journal. 1971; 8: 191-202.

  • Munro, S., Chau, C., Gazarian, K., & Diamond, A. Dramatically larger flanker effects (6-fold elevation). Poster presented at the Cognitive Neuroscience Society Annual Meeting; 2006.

  • Nall, S. L.. Dimensions of metaphor comprehension in third, fifth and seventh graders. Wake Forest University, NC, Dept. of Psychology, Unpublished Master’s Thesis, 1983.

  • Ortony, A. Beyond literal similarity. Psychological Review. 1979; 87: 161-180.

  • Özçalişkan, Ş. Metaphor meets typology: Ways of moving metaphorically in English and Turkish. Cognitive Linguistics. 2005; 16(1): 207-246.

  • Paivio, A. Psychological processes in the comprehension of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.) Metaphor and Thought. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1979. p. 150-171.

  • Prat, C. S., Mason, R. A., & Just, M. A. An fMRI investigation of analogical mapping in metaphor comprehension: the influence of contexts and individual cognitive capacities on processing demands. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 2012; 38: 282-294.

  • Prat C.S, Just M.A. Exploring the cortical dynamics underpinning individual differences in sentence comprehension. Cerebral Cortex. 2011; 21:1747–1760.

  • Recanati, F. Literal Meaning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2004.

  • Reyna, V. Meaning, Memory and the Interpretation of Metaphors. In J. Mio & A Katz (cds.) Metaphor: Pragmatics and Applications. Hillsdale. NJ; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1996, p. 39-57.

  • Reyna, V. F., & Kiernan, B. Children's memory and metaphorical interpretation. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity. 1995; 10(4): 309-331.

  • Rubio-Fernández, P. R. Inhibition in metaphor interpretation: Differences between meaning selection and meaning construction. Journal of Semantics. 2007; 24(4): 345-371.

  • Rundblad, G., & Annaz, D. The atypical development of metaphor and metonymy comprehension in children with autism. Journal of Autism Research. 2010; 14: 29–46.

  • Seibold, D. R., & McPhee, R. D. Commonality analysis: A method for decomposing explained variance in multiple regression analyses. Human Communication Research. 1979; 5: 355-365. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1979.tb00649.x.

  • Stemler, S. E. A comparison of consensus, consistency, and measurement approaches to estimating interrater reliability. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 2004; 9(4): 1-19.

  • Tourangeau, R., & Sternberg, R. J. Understanding and appreciating metaphors. Cognition. 1982; 11(3): 203-244.

  • Trick, L., & Katz, A. The domain interaction approach to metaphor processing: Relating individual differences and metaphor characteristics. Metaphor& Symbolic Activity. 1986; 1: 185-213.

  • Wilcox, R. R., Keselman, H. J. Modern robust data analysis methods: Measures of central tendency. Psychological Methods. 2003; 8: 254–274.

  • Winner, E., Engel, M., & Gardner, H. Misunderstanding metaphor: What's the problem? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. 1980; 30: 22-32.

  • Winner, E., Rosenstiel, A., & Gardner, H. The development of metaphoric understanding. Developmental Psychology. 1976; 12: 289-297.

  • Wisler, C. E. Partitioning the variance explained in a regression analysis. In G. W. Mayeske, C. E. Wisler, A.E. Beaton, Jr., F.O. Weinfield, W.M. Cohen, T. Okada, J.M. Proshek, and K. A. Tabler, A study of our nation’ s schools. Washington, DC: Office of Education, HEW; 1969.

  • Wolff, P., & Gentner, D. The time course metaphor comprehension. Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1992. p. 504–509.

  • Xu, F., Han, Y., Sabbagh, M. A., Wang, T., Ren, X., & Li, C. Developmental differences in the structure of executive function in middle childhood and adolescence. PLoS ONE. 2013; 8:e77770. 10.1371/journal.pone.0077770

All versions This version
Views 128128
Downloads 88
Data volume 397.2 kB397.2 kB
Unique views 124124
Unique downloads 88


Cite as