Introduction:
There is broad consensus among theorists that metaphor comprehension involves assigning semantic features from the source to the target. However, there are disagreements regarding the nature of the semantic content activated during metaphor processing. The Direct Access Model (classification), which aligns with the simulation view, asserts that metaphorical and literal expressions can be processed in parallel, following the same pathways and mechanisms. In contrast, Dual Access Models (analogy) argue that metaphor comprehension occurs only after identifying common features and inferring from the source to the target. The aim of this study is to examine which of these theories better explains metaphor processing. Method: Using the Cardillo Metaphor Battery (2010), the effects of syntactic form (nominal vs. verbal metaphors) and sensory-motor modality (auditory vs. motor metaphors) were investigated as independent variables, with comprehension ease as the control variable. A total of 36 participants (aged 22 to 44) read the sentences and judged their comprehensibility. Reaction time was recorded as an indicator of processing efficiency. Results: The results showed that processing nominal metaphors took more time and was more challenging compared to verbal metaphors, and motor metaphors were processed more slowly and with greater difficulty than auditory metaphors (P<‌0.001). Conclusion: These findings are inconsistent with direct access models, such as the classification model, which suggest that there are no significant differences in sentence processing when various factors are controlled. Despite controlling for influential variables, higher cognitive costs were observed in both syntactic and sensory dimensions. The results are more consistent with indirect access models, such as analogy theories, and particularly with the Bowdle and Gentner’s (2005) Career of Metaphor Hypothesis, which emphasizes that metaphorical meaning interferes with literal interpretations. The increased cognitive load may reflect the difficulty of accessing semantic or conceptual levels in long-term memory.