**Original citation.** Estes, Z., Verges, M., & Barsalou, L.W. (2008). Head up, foot down. Object words orient attention to the objects’ typical location. Psychological Science, 19(2), 93–97. ________________________________________ **Target of replication.** Some words denote objects that typically occur at specific locations. For instance, branches are typically overhead, whereas roots are underfoot. Thus, such words have a particular “spatial connotation”. Estes, Verges and Barsalou tested in three experiments whether such object words orient attention to the corresponding locations. Their specific hypothesis was that such an attentional effect of object words should interfere with the visual perception of a target in the typical location of the object. We will replicate Experiment 1. “In this experiment, object words associated with an upper or lower location served as cues. To ensure that the object words unambiguously denoted an upper or lower location, we presented a context word before each object word. Thus, on each trial, a context word (e.g., cowboy) was followed by an upper location (e.g., hat) or lower-location (e.g., boot) cue. Context and cue words were both presented centrally. A target letter (X or O) then appeared at the top or bottom of the display, and participants identified the target as quickly as possible. (p. 95) ________________________________________ **A priori replication criteria.** Estes, Verges and Barsalou compare targets occurring at typical (e.g., bottom targets after a lower-location cue) and at atypical (e.g., bottom targets after an upper-location cue) locations. They report higher response times and error-rates for targets at typical locations. The replication study should be considered successful if we find both of these effects. ________________________________________ **Materials, Data, and Report.** Study materials can be found in the in the [materials component][2] of this project. Raw data can be found in the [dataset node][3]. The full report appears in the files section of this node. ________________________________________ **Conclusions.** We could not replicate any of the two effects reported in Study 1 by Estes, Verges and Barsalou (2008). In our replication attempt, the effect of target location on response time and error rate was not only non-significant but almost zero. Thus, there was no evidence for the assumption that the cue word evoked a perceptual simulation in the object’s typical location that was hindering perception of a target letter at that location. [Download the full report][1] [1]: https://openscienceframework.org/project/vwniT/files [2]: https://openscienceframework.org/project/vwniT/node/BfcOG/ [3]: https://openscienceframework.org/project/vwniT/node/DCIbl/