Role of Joint Language Control During Cross-language Communication: Evidence from Cross-frequency Coupling

Overview

Journal Cogn Neurodyn

Publisher Springer

Specialty Neurology

Date 2021 Apr 15

PMID 33854639

Authors

Huanhuan Liu

Baike Li

Xin Wang

Yuying He

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

How do bilingual interlocutors inhibit interference from the non-target language to achieve brain-to-brain information exchange in a task to simulate a bilingual speaker-listener interaction. In the current study, two electroencephalogram devices were employed to record pairs of participants' performances in a joint language switching task. Twenty-eight (14 pairs) unbalanced Chinese-English bilinguals (L1 Chinese) were instructed to name pictures in the appropriate language according to the cue. The phase-amplitude coupling analysis was employed to reveal the large-scale brain network responsible for joint language control between interlocutors. We found that (1) speakers and listeners coordinately suppressed cross-language interference through cross-frequency coupling, as shown in the increased delta/theta phase-amplitude and delta/alpha phase-amplitude coupling when switching to L2 than switching to L1; (2) speakers and listeners were both able to simultaneously inhibit cross-person item-level interference which was demonstrated by stronger cross-frequency coupling in the cross person condition compared to the within person condition. These results indicate that current bilingual models (e.g., the inhibitory control model) should incorporate mechanisms that address inhibiting interference sourced in both and (i.e., cross-language and cross-person item-level interference) synchronously through joint language control in dynamic cross-language communication.

References

Brysbaert M, New B . Moving beyond Kucera and Francis: a critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behav Res Methods. 2009; 41(4):977-90. DOI: 10.3758/BRM.41.4.977. View

Pickering M, Garrod S . Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behav Brain Sci. 2004; 27(2):169-90. DOI: 10.1017/s0140525x04000056. View

von Stein A, Chiang C, Konig P . Top-down processing mediated by interareal synchronization. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000; 97(26):14748-53. PMC: 18990. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.97.26.14748. View

Jensen O, Mazaheri A . Shaping functional architecture by oscillatory alpha activity: gating by inhibition. Front Hum Neurosci. 2010; 4:186. PMC: 2990626. DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2010.00186. View

Hyafil A, Giraud A, Fontolan L, Gutkin B . Neural Cross-Frequency Coupling: Connecting Architectures, Mechanisms, and Functions. Trends Neurosci. 2015; 38(11):725-740. DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2015.09.001. View

Poikonen H, Toiviainen P, Tervaniemi M . Naturalistic music and dance: Cortical phase synchrony in musicians and dancers. PLoS One. 2018; 13(4):e0196065. PMC: 5908167. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0196065. View

Garrod S, Pickering M . Joint action, interactive alignment, and dialog. Top Cogn Sci. 2014; 1(2):292-304. DOI: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2009.01020.x. View

Tort A, Komorowski R, Eichenbaum H, Kopell N . Measuring phase-amplitude coupling between neuronal oscillations of different frequencies. J Neurophysiol. 2010; 104(2):1195-210. PMC: 2941206. DOI: 10.1152/jn.00106.2010. View

Lemhofer K, Broersma M . Introducing LexTALE: a quick and valid Lexical Test for Advanced Learners of English. Behav Res Methods. 2011; 44(2):325-43. PMC: 3356522. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-011-0146-0. View

10.

Zion Golumbic E, Ding N, Bickel S, Lakatos P, Schevon C, McKhann G . Mechanisms underlying selective neuronal tracking of attended speech at a "cocktail party". Neuron. 2013; 77(5):980-91. PMC: 3891478. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2012.12.037. View

11.

Tort A, Kramer M, Thorn C, Gibson D, Kubota Y, Graybiel A . Dynamic cross-frequency couplings of local field potential oscillations in rat striatum and hippocampus during performance of a T-maze task. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008; 105(51):20517-22. PMC: 2629291. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0810524105. View

12.

Declerck M, Philipp A . A sentence to remember: instructed language switching in sentence production. Cognition. 2015; 137:166-173. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2015.01.006. View

13.

Tarlowski A, Wodniecka Z, Marzecova A . Language switching in the production of phrases. J Psycholinguist Res. 2012; 42(2):103-18. DOI: 10.1007/s10936-012-9203-9. View

14.

Burgess A . On the interpretation of synchronization in EEG hyperscanning studies: a cautionary note. Front Hum Neurosci. 2014; 7:881. PMC: 3870947. DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00881. View

15.

Verhoef K, Roelofs A, Chwilla D . Electrophysiological evidence for endogenous control of attention in switching between languages in overt picture naming. J Cogn Neurosci. 2009; 22(8):1832-43. DOI: 10.1162/jocn.2009.21291. View

16.

Onslow A, Jones M, Bogacz R . A canonical circuit for generating phase-amplitude coupling. PLoS One. 2014; 9(8):e102591. PMC: 4138025. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0102591. View

17.

Anders S, Heinzle J, Weiskopf N, Ethofer T, Haynes J . Flow of affective information between communicating brains. Neuroimage. 2010; 54(1):439-46. PMC: 3081064. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.07.004. View

18.

Roehm D, Schlesewsky M, Bornkessel I, Frisch S, Haider H . Fractionating language comprehension via frequency characteristics of the human EEG. Neuroreport. 2004; 15(3):409-12. DOI: 10.1097/00001756-200403010-00005. View

19.

Hasson U, Ghazanfar A, Galantucci B, Garrod S, Keysers C . Brain-to-brain coupling: a mechanism for creating and sharing a social world. Trends Cogn Sci. 2012; 16(2):114-21. PMC: 3269540. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2011.12.007. View

20.

Kielar A, Meltzer J, Moreno S, Alain C, Bialystok E . Oscillatory responses to semantic and syntactic violations. J Cogn Neurosci. 2014; 26(12):2840-62. DOI: 10.1162/jocn_a_00670. View