Language
Metaphor Interference Task
Also called: metaphor comprehension task, metaphor interference effect, literal truth judgment task, figurative language comprehension, idiom comprehension
Measure how hard it is to ignore a metaphor: participants judge short English sentences as literally true or false, and metaphors such as "Some offices are zoos" take longer to reject than the same words scrambled.
6-8 minTimed: desktop or laptop with a mouse or trackpad
Free to start: 10 free participants per account, then $0.99 per participant for academic research, or any yearly plan. Try it here first, with no account.
- Papers, 2021 to 2025
- 436
- Evidence grade
- C
- Registered clinical studies
- 2
What it measures
Measures how hard it is to ignore a metaphor. Participants press F or J to judge 96 short English sentences, such as "Some fruits are mangoes", as literally true or false. Metaphors such as "Some offices are zoos" are literally false, and the score is how much longer they take to reject than the same words scrambled. Twelve multiple-choice questions on what metaphors and idioms mean follow unless the study leaves them out.
Constructs
- Figurative language comprehension
- Automatic meaning activation
- Idiom comprehension
Research uses
- Figurative language and metaphor research
- Individual differences in language comprehension
- Within-study group comparison
How the paradigm works
The Metaphor Interference Task measures how hard it is to ignore what a metaphor means. It follows Glucksberg, Gildea and Bookin (1982), as Wolff and Gentner (2000) describe their method: short sentences of the form "Some X are Y" are judged literally true or false as quickly as possible. A literal sentence names a category and some of its members ("Some fruits are mangoes") and is true; a meaningless one pairs a category with a member of another ("Some soups are pliers") and is false; and a metaphor ("Some offices are zoos") is literally false but makes sense as a figure of speech. Scrambles pair the metaphors' topics and vehicles so that they make no sense ("Some offices are seeds"). People take longer to reject a metaphor than a scramble, because its figurative meaning is understood while the literal judgment is still being made: the metaphor interference effect. Wolff and Gentner found metaphors rejected in 1,118 ms against 1,078 ms for scrambles, and Kazmerski, Blasko and Dessalegn (2003) found differences of 11 to 35 ms between groups of adults, largest in the group with the highest IQ scores.
More about the paradigm
Each session shows 8 practice sentences with feedback, then 96 test sentences without: 48 literally true, 16 meaningless, 16 metaphors and 16 scrambles, so half are true and half false, with no more than three of one answer in a row. The 16 metaphor couples are split into two lists drawn from the session's seed: a couple's two metaphors appear in one list and its two scrambles, made from the same four words, in the other, so every topic and vehicle appears once in a session. A cross shows for 500 ms before each sentence, and a sentence not judged within 5 seconds counts as missed. Which key means true is drawn from the seed. Every sentence was written for this library from facts any adult knows, none of them from a published item set, and no literal sentence depends on how "some" is read. The sentences are English in every session; the instructions follow the session's language.
The main score, the metaphor interference effect, is the median time to reject a metaphor minus the median time to reject a scramble, over right answers at or after 100 ms. The task also reports both medians, the share of metaphors and of scrambles judged literally true, the medians for true and meaningless sentences, and accuracy. Unless the study turns them off, twelve multiple-choice questions follow, on what a metaphor or an everyday English idiom in a sentence means, each offering the figurative meaning, a literal reading of the words and two other meanings in an order drawn from the seed. The task reports the share answered with the figurative meaning, for metaphors and for idioms, and how often the literal reading was chosen. One person's interference effect rests on 16 metaphors and 16 scrambles, so it is a research measure best compared between groups. Scores support research and do not diagnose.
Scores
- Metaphor Interferencems
- Median time to reject a metaphor as literally false minus the median time to reject a scramble of the same words, over right answers.
- Positive values mean the metaphor's meaning slowed the literal judgment; not better or worse
- Metaphor Timems
- Median time to judge a metaphor literally false, over right answers at or after 100 ms.
- Lower is faster
- Scramble Timems
- Median time to judge a scramble literally false, over right answers at or after 100 ms.
- Lower is faster
- Metaphors Judged True%
- Share of answered metaphors judged literally true.
- Higher means the metaphor's meaning drew more true answers
- Scrambles Judged True%
- Share of answered scrambles judged literally true.
- Expected to be near 0
- True Sentence Timems
- Median time to judge a literally true sentence true, over right answers.
- Lower is faster
- Meaningless Sentence Timems
- Median time to judge a meaningless sentence false, over right answers.
- Lower is faster
- Accuracy%
- Right judgments as a share of right and wrong ones, over all test sentences.
- Below 0.7 is invalid
- Meaning Questions Right%
- Share of the meaning questions answered with the figurative meaning; empty when the study left them out.
- Higher means more figurative meanings chosen
- Metaphor Meanings Right%
- Share of the six metaphor questions answered with the figurative meaning.
- Higher means more figurative meanings chosen
- Idiom Meanings Right%
- Share of the six idiom questions answered with the figurative meaning.
- Higher means more figurative meanings chosen
- Literal Readings Chosencount
- Meaning questions answered with the literal reading of the words.
- Informational
- Missed Sentencescount
- Test sentences not judged within 5 seconds.
- Expected to be 0
- Anticipationscount
- Judgments under 100 ms after the sentence appeared, counted neither right nor wrong.
- Expected to be 0
- Session In Another Language0/1
- 1 when the session ran in a language other than English; the sentences are English in every session.
- Flagged for review
Use and evidence
436 papers from 2021 to 2025 name this task in their title or abstract, up 9% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 61 of 495 test families in our census. See the counts for every test.
Show the numbers
| Year | Papers |
|---|---|
| 2025 | 132 |
| 2024 | 84 |
| 2023 | 91 |
| 2022 | 63 |
| 2021 | 66 |
| 2020 | 70 |
| 2019 | 81 |
| 2018 | 98 |
| 2017 | 79 |
| 2016 | 73 |
| 2015 | 67 |
| 2014 | 76 |
| 2013 | 65 |
| 2012 | 62 |
| 2011 | 55 |
| 2010 | 55 |
| 2009 | 37 |
| 2008 | 31 |
| 2007 | 33 |
| 2006 | 37 |
| 2005 | 27 |
| 2004 | 26 |
| 2003 | 27 |
| 2002 | 19 |
| 2001 | 20 |
| 2000 | 14 |
Use grade B
300 to 999 papers from 2021 to 2025.
Evidence grade C
At least 2 test-retest papers, 30 reliability or validity papers or 3 registered clinical studies.
- Papers on test-retest reliability
- 1
- Papers on reliability or validity
- 51
- Registered clinical studies using it as an outcome
- 2
How the grades work
Use: A is 1,000 or more papers from 2021 to 2025, B 300 to 999, C 100 to 299, D 30 to 99 and E fewer than 30. Evidence: A means at least 25 papers report its test-retest reliability and at least 25 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome; B, at least 8 test-retest papers, and either 5 registered clinical studies or 150 reliability or validity papers; C, at least 2 test-retest papers, 30 reliability or validity papers or 3 registered clinical studies; D, little published measurement evidence found. The counts measure use. They include every paper that names the task in its title or abstract. Grades describe the published research on this task, not ConductCognition's version of it.
Source: ConductCognition test census 0.22.0, counted 3 November 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
Task design
The trial sequence as the test runs in ConductCognition.
- Sentences
- "Some X are Y" sentences written for this test: 48 literally true (a category and some of its members), 16 meaningless and false, 16 metaphors and 16 scrambles of the same words, so half are true and half false. They are English in every session.
- Lists
- 16 metaphor couples in two lists drawn from the session's seed: a couple's two metaphors appear in one list and its two scrambles, which swap the vehicles, in the other.
- Trial
- A cross for 500 ms, then the sentence until F or J or 5,000 ms. Which key means true is drawn from the seed.
- Session
- 8 practice sentences with feedback, then 96 with none, with no more than 3 of one answer in a row.
- Meaning questions
- 12 sentences with a metaphor or an everyday idiom in bold, each with four answers: the figurative meaning, a literal reading and two other meanings. A setting leaves them out.
- Scoring
- The metaphor interference effect is the median time to reject a metaphor minus the median time to reject a scramble, over right answers at or after 100 ms. More than 30% wrong judgments is invalid.
The sentences were written for this test, not taken from Glucksberg, Gildea and Bookin's (1982) or later item sets, and the meaning questions are an addition of ours. Scrambles reuse the metaphors' own words, as in the original, so the effect does not rest on the words themselves. One person's effect rests on 16 metaphors and 16 scrambles, so compare groups, not single people.
Quality checks
Each session is marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason, before you see its scores.
Scored rows: metaphor_comprehension_test from the scored run, F or J for literally true or false within 5 seconds (chance 50%, half the sentences true). Below chance invalidates, not above chance is flagged, and one key on 90% of answers invalidates when accuracy is not above chance. Missed responses and responses under 100 ms follow the timed-test rule. More than 30% wrong judgments invalidates. More than half the metaphors judged true, or a session in a language other than English, is flagged for review. The meaning questions are not part of the rule.
Why these rules
Accuracy significantly below chance (one-sided exact test, p < .05) cannot come from guessing; it means the response mapping was reversed or the task was not followed (Slick, Sherman and Iverson 1999 treat below-chance forced-choice performance as definite response bias). Chance-level accuracy can be a real result in impaired participants, so it is only flagged. One option on at least 90% of answered trials, when the correct options are balanced and accuracy is not above chance, means the answers did not depend on the items (the task counterpart of long-string responding in surveys; Curran 2016). Missed responses and responses under 100 ms keep the platform's timed-test rule: more than max(3, 25%) missed responses or more than max(2, 20%) responses under 100 ms invalidate, and any is flagged. A response under 100 ms cannot be a reaction to the stimulus. Wolff and Gentner (2000) set aside participants with more than 30% errors. A person who judges metaphors true is answering whether they are apt, not whether they are literally true, so the interference score does not apply. The word lists are English. A session run in another language shows English words to a participant who may not read English fluently, so it is flagged for review. These limits are ConductScience choices.
No percentile. Scores and quality flags only.
Running this test
Settings you can change
| Setting | Standard | Allowed |
|---|---|---|
| Meaning questions | On | On or off |
Yearly plans can change settings within these limits. Free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Need a setting this test does not have?
Devices and languages
- Timed test: participants need a desktop or laptop with a mouse or trackpad. Participant devices
- Instructions and screens: English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese. Words and sentences: English.
- Available on: Every plan, including the free plan.
- No percentile. Scores and quality flags only. How norms work
- Recruiting online? See the setup guides for Prolific, Sona Systems, CloudResearch Connect and Qualtrics.
Cite and describe
Participants completed the Metaphor Interference Task in a web browser (ConductCognition task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0; Glucksberg, Gildea & Bookin, 1982), with the standard settings (meaning questions: On). The main score was metaphor interference (median time to reject a metaphor as literally false minus the median time to reject a scramble of the same words, over right answers).
ConductCognition versions: task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0. Every export records the versions each session used, for a methods section.
- Glucksberg, S., Gildea, P., & Bookin, H. B. (1982). On understanding nonliteral speech: Can people ignore metaphors? Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 21(1), 85-98. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(82)90467-4The task: literal true-or-false judgments, in which metaphors are slower to reject than other false sentences.
- Wolff, P., & Gentner, D. (2000). Evidence for role-neutral initial processing of metaphors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(2), 529-541. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.26.2.529The method in detail: true, meaningless, metaphor and scrambled "Some X are Y" sentences, a 5-second limit, and metaphors rejected in 1,118 ms against 1,078 ms for scrambles.
- Kazmerski, V. A., Blasko, D. G., & Dessalegn, B. G. (2003). ERP and behavioral evidence of individual differences in metaphor comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 31(5), 673-689. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196107Two counterbalanced lists of metaphors and their scrambles, and an interference effect of 11 to 35 ms that grew across groups with IQ scores.
Source papers
- Glucksberg S, Gildea P, Bookin HB (1982). On understanding nonliteral speech: Can people ignore metaphors? Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 21(1):85-98.Paradigm source, Adults
- No normative data for this task.Paradigm source, N/A
Questions
How long does the Metaphor Interference Task take?
About 6 to 8 minutes, as listed in the test library.
What device does a participant need?
Timed test: participants need a desktop or laptop with a mouse or trackpad. The browser must be Chrome, Edge, Firefox or Safari.
What scores does it produce?
Metaphor Interference, Metaphor Time, Scramble Time, Metaphors Judged True, Scrambles Judged True, True Sentence Time, Meaningless Sentence Time, Accuracy, Meaning Questions Right, Metaphor Meanings Right, Idiom Meanings Right, Literal Readings Chosen, Missed Sentences, Anticipations and Session In Another Language. Each session is also marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason.
How widely is the Metaphor Interference Task used in research?
436 papers from 2021 to 2025 name it in their title or abstract, up 9% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 61 of 495 test families in the ConductCognition test census (use grade B). Source: ConductCognition test census 0.22.0, counted 3 November 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
How much reliability evidence does the Metaphor Interference Task have?
In the published research, 1 paper reports its test-retest reliability and 2 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome (evidence grade C in the ConductCognition test census).
Does it report a percentile?
No. Scores and quality flags only.
Which settings can a researcher change?
Meaning questions (On or off). Settings can be changed on yearly plans; free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Which languages can participants use?
The instructions and screens are in English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese. The words and sentences stay in English, so sessions in other languages are flagged for review. English is on every plan, and the other languages come with yearly plans. Have a native speaker read the machine-translated text before launch.
Is this a clinical test?
No. ConductCognition is for research use only. It runs, scores and exports the test; clinical interpretation is outside the platform.
Every test: the full test list.
Run this test in your next study
Start free with 10 free participants on any test, then use participant credits or a yearly plan.