Effects of Tasks on BOLD Signal Responses to Sentence Contrasts: Review and Commentary

Overview

Journal Brain Lang

Publisher Elsevier

Specialties Neurology
Otorhinolaryngology
Psychiatry

Date 2010 Oct 12

PMID 20932562

Citations 4

Authors

David Caplan

David Gow

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Functional neuroimaging studies of syntactic processing have been interpreted as identifying the neural locations of parsing and interpretive operations. However, current behavioral studies of sentence processing indicate that many operations occur simultaneously with parsing and interpretation. In this review, we point to issues that arise in discriminating the effects of these concurrent processes from those of the parser/interpreter in neural measures and to approaches that may help resolve them.

Citing Articles

Common and distinct neural substrates of sentence production and comprehension.

Lukic S, Thompson C, Barbieri E, Chiappetta B, Bonakdarpour B, Kiran S Neuroimage. 2020; 224:117374.

PMID: 32949711 PMC: 10134242. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117374.

Perceived communicative intent in gesture and language modulates the superior temporal sulcus.

Redcay E, Velnoskey K, Rowe M Hum Brain Mapp. 2016; 37(10):3444-61.

PMID: 27238550 PMC: 6867447. DOI: 10.1002/hbm.23251.

Rules from words: a dynamic neural basis for a lawful linguistic process.

Gow Jr D, Nied A PLoS One. 2014; 9(1):e86212.

PMID: 24465965 PMC: 3897659. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0086212.

New levels of language processing complexity and organization revealed by granger causation.

Gow Jr D, Caplan D Front Psychol. 2013; 3:506.

PMID: 23293611 PMC: 3536267. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00506.

References

Caplan D, Alpert N, Waters G . Effects of syntactic structure and propositional number on patterns of regional cerebral blood flow. J Cogn Neurosci. 1998; 10(4):541-52. DOI: 10.1162/089892998562843. View

Indefrey P, Hagoort P, Herzog H, Seitz R, Brown C . Syntactic processing in left prefrontal cortex is independent of lexical meaning. Neuroimage. 2001; 14(3):546-55. DOI: 10.1006/nimg.2001.0867. View

Nobre A, McCarthy G . Language-related field potentials in the anterior-medial temporal lobe: II. Effects of word type and semantic priming. J Neurosci. 1995; 15(2):1090-8. PMC: 6577813. View

Reichle E, Rayner K, Pollatsek A . The E-Z reader model of eye-movement control in reading: comparisons to other models. Behav Brain Sci. 2004; 26(4):445-76. DOI: 10.1017/s0140525x03000104. View

Page M . What can't functional neuroimaging tell the cognitive psychologist?. Cortex. 2006; 42(3):428-43. DOI: 10.1016/s0010-9452(08)70375-7. View

Caplan D . Experimental design and interpretation of functional neuroimaging studies of cognitive processes. Hum Brain Mapp. 2007; 30(1):59-77. PMC: 2612094. DOI: 10.1002/hbm.20489. View

MacDonald M, Pearlmutter N, Seidenberg M . The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution [corrected]. Psychol Rev. 1994; 101(4):676-703. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295x.101.4.676. View

Supp G, Schlogl A, Trujillo-Barreto N, Muller M, Gruber T . Directed cortical information flow during human object recognition: analyzing induced EEG gamma-band responses in brain's source space. PLoS One. 2007; 2(8):e684. PMC: 1925146. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0000684. View

Gow Jr D, Segawa J . Articulatory mediation of speech perception: a causal analysis of multi-modal imaging data. Cognition. 2008; 110(2):222-36. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.11.011. View

10.

Kan I, Thompson-Schill S . Selection from perceptual and conceptual representations. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2005; 4(4):466-82. DOI: 10.3758/cabn.4.4.466. View

11.

Norris D, McQueen J, Cutler A . Merging information in speech recognition: feedback is never necessary. Behav Brain Sci. 2001; 23(3):299-325; discussion 325-70. DOI: 10.1017/s0140525x00003241. View

12.

Ratcliff R . Modeling response signal and response time data. Cogn Psychol. 2006; 53(3):195-237. PMC: 2397556. DOI: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2005.10.002. View

13.

Duffau H, Capelle L, Denvil D, Gatignol P, Sichez N, Lopes M . The role of dominant premotor cortex in language: a study using intraoperative functional mapping in awake patients. Neuroimage. 2003; 20(4):1903-14. DOI: 10.1016/s1053-8119(03)00203-9. View

14.

Farmer T, Cargill S, Spivey M . Gradiency and Visual Context in Syntactic Garden-Paths. J Mem Lang. 2007; 57(4):570-595. PMC: 2084067. DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2007.04.003. View

15.

Gaskell M, Marslen-Wilson W . Mechanisms of phonological inference in speech perception. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1998; 24(2):380-96. DOI: 10.1037//0096-1523.24.2.380. View

16.

Nobre A, Allison T, McCarthy G . Word recognition in the human inferior temporal lobe. Nature. 1994; 372(6503):260-3. DOI: 10.1038/372260a0. View

17.

BERTRAND . Oscillatory gamma activity in humans and its role in object representation. Trends Cogn Sci. 1999; 3(4):151-162. DOI: 10.1016/s1364-6613(99)01299-1. View

18.

Tanenhaus M, Magnuson J, Dahan D, Chambers C . Eye movements and lexical access in spoken-language comprehension: evaluating a linking hypothesis between fixations and linguistic processing. J Psycholinguist Res. 2001; 29(6):557-80. DOI: 10.1023/a:1026464108329. View

19.

Tanenhaus M, Eberhard K, Sedivy J . Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science. 1995; 268(5217):1632-4. DOI: 10.1126/science.7777863. View

20.

Levy R . Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition. 2007; 106(3):1126-77. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.05.006. View