Neural correlates of combinatorial semantic processing of literal and figurative noun noun compound words

NeuroImage ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 63 (3) ◽  
pp. 1432-1442 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bálint Forgács ◽  
Isabel Bohrn ◽  
Jürgen Baudewig ◽  
Markus J. Hofmann ◽  
Csaba Pléh ◽  
...  
Author(s):  
Sarah J. White ◽  
Raymond Bertram ◽  
Jukka Hyönä

2009 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-58 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lawrence J. Taylor ◽  
Rolf A. Zwaan

AbstractEmpirical research has shown that the processing of words and sentences is accompanied by activation of the brain's motor system in language users. The degree of precision observed in this activation seems to be contingent upon (1) the meaning of a linguistic construction and (2) the depth with which readers process that construction. In addition, neurological evidence shows a correspondence between a disruption in the neural correlates of overt action and the disruption of semantic processing of language about action. These converging lines of evidence can be taken to support the hypotheses that motor processes (1) are recruited to understand language that focuses on actions and (2) contribute a unique element to conceptual representation. This article explores the role of this motor recruitment in language comprehension. It concludes that extant findings are consistent with the theorized existence of multimodal, embodied representations of the referents of words and the meaning carried by language. Further, an integrative conceptualization of “fault tolerant comprehension” is proposed.


2006 ◽  
Vol 99 (3) ◽  
pp. 226-235 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henrike K. Blumenfeld ◽  
James R. Booth ◽  
Douglas D. Burman

2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 603-636 ◽  
Author(s):  
PETRA AUGURZKY ◽  
OLIVER BOTT ◽  
WOLFGANG STERNEFELD ◽  
ROLF ULRICH

abstractThe present ERP study investigates the neural correlates of pictorial context effects on compositional-semantic processing. We examined whether the incremental processing of questions involving quantifier restriction is modulated by the reliability of pictorial information. Contexts either allowed for an unambiguous meaning evaluation at an early sentential position or were ambiguous with respect to whether a further restrictive cue could trigger later meaning revisions. Attention was either guided towards (Experiment 1) or away from (Experiment 2) the picture–question mapping. In both experiments, negative answers elicited a broadly distributed negativity opposed to affirmative answers as soon as an unambiguous truth evaluation was possible. In the presence of ambiguous context information, the truth evaluation initially remained underspecified, as an early commitment would have resulted in the risk of a semantic reanalysis. The negativity was followed by a late positivity in Experiment 1, but not in Experiment 2, suggesting that attention towards the mismatch affected semantic processing, but only at a later time window. The current results are consistent with the notion that an incremental meaning evaluation is dependent on the reliability of contextual information.


Author(s):  
Ian S. Hargreaves ◽  
Gemma A. Leonard ◽  
Penny M. Pexman ◽  
Daniel J. Pittman ◽  
Paul D. Siakaluk ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 64 (9) ◽  
pp. 3697-3706
Author(s):  
Dhatri S. Devaraju ◽  
Amy Kemp ◽  
David A. Eddins ◽  
Rahul Shrivastav ◽  
Bharath Chandrasekaran ◽  
...  

Purpose Listeners shift their listening strategies between lower level acoustic information and higher level semantic information to prioritize maximum speech intelligibility in challenging listening conditions. Although increasing task demands via acoustic degradation modulates lexical-semantic processing, the neural mechanisms underlying different listening strategies are unclear. The current study examined the extent to which encoding of lower level acoustic cues is modulated by task demand and associations with lexical-semantic processes. Method Electroencephalography was acquired while participants listened to sentences in the presence of four-talker babble that contained either higher or lower probability final words. Task difficulty was modulated by time available to process responses. Cortical tracking of speech—neural correlates of acoustic temporal envelope processing—were estimated using temporal response functions. Results Task difficulty did not affect cortical tracking of temporal envelope of speech under challenging listening conditions. Neural indices of lexical-semantic processing (N400 amplitudes) were larger with increased task difficulty. No correlations were observed between the cortical tracking of temporal envelope of speech and lexical-semantic processes, even after controlling for the effect of individualized signal-to-noise ratios. Conclusions Cortical tracking of the temporal envelope of speech and semantic processing are differentially influenced by task difficulty. While increased task demands modulated higher level semantic processing, cortical tracking of the temporal envelope of speech may be influenced by task difficulty primarily when the demand is manipulated in terms of acoustic properties of the stimulus, consistent with an emerging perspective in speech perception.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matias Morales ◽  
Tanvi Patel ◽  
Andres Tamm ◽  
Martin Pickering ◽  
Paul Hoffman

When comprehending discourse, listeners engage default mode regions associated with integrative semantic processing to construct a situation model of its content. We investigated how similar networks are engaged when we produce, as well as comprehend, discourse. During fMRI, participants spoke about a series of specific topics and listened to discourse on other topics. We tested how activation was predicted by natural fluctuations in the global coherence of the discourse, i.e., the degree to which utterances conformed to the expected topic. The neural correlates of coherence were similar across speaking and listening, particularly in default mode regions. This network showed greater activation when less coherent speech was heard or produced, reflecting updating of mental representations when discourse did not conform to the expected topic. In contrast, regions that exert control over semantic activation showed task-specific effects, correlating negatively with coherence during listening but not during production. Participants who showed greater activation in left inferior prefrontal cortex also produced more coherent discourse, suggesting a specific role for this region in goal-directed regulation of speech content. Results suggest strong alignment of discourse representations during speaking and listening. However, they indicate that the semantic control network plays different roles in comprehension and production.


Remembering ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 217-232
Author(s):  
Fergus I. M. Craik

This short chapter first describes studies using PET scanning and fMRI imaging carried out by the author in collaboration with colleagues over the past 25 years. The main purpose of the chapter is to assess the extent to which current work on neuroimaging is compatible with the findings and ideas derived from the cognitive experiments described in previous chapters. The questions asked include: What are the neural correlates of deeper processing, and does the neuroimaging evidence illuminate the reasons for the strong relation between semantic processing and good memory? Is there evidence to support the proposal that retrieval processes recapitulate encoding processes? Is the similarity between perception and memory borne out at the neural level? How does novelty affect memory, and is there a conflict between the claims that both novel and familiar experiences are associated with good levels of recollection? What exactly are processing resources at the neural level? And, finally, how does the author’s emphasis on remembering as an activity square with the evidence from neuroimaging studies?


2009 ◽  
Vol 5 (4S_Part_9) ◽  
pp. P269-P269
Author(s):  
Vanessa Taler ◽  
Andrew J. Saykin ◽  
John D. West ◽  
Laura A. Flashman ◽  
Heather A. Wishart ◽  
...  

2012 ◽  
Vol 120 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-78 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian S. Hargreaves ◽  
Michelle White ◽  
Penny M. Pexman ◽  
Dan Pittman ◽  
Brad G. Goodyear

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document