Common Sources of Linguistic Conflict Engage Domain-general Conflict Control Mechanisms During Language Comprehension

Overview

Journal Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci

Publisher Springer

Specialties Neurology
Social Sciences

Date 2025 Feb 12

PMID 39939461

Authors

Megan A Boudewyn

Yaqi Xu

Ashley R Rosenfeld

Nathan P Caines

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

The current study tested the hypothesis that lexical ambiguity, a common source of representational conflict during language comprehension, engages domain-general cognitive control processes that are reflected by theta-band oscillations in scalp-recorded electroencephalograms (EEG). In Experiment 1, we examined the neural signature elicited by lexically ambiguous compared to unambiguous words during sentence comprehension. The results showed that midfrontal theta activity was increased in response to linguistic conflict (lexical ambiguity). In Experiment 2, we examined postconflict adaptation effects by comparing temporarily ambiguous sentences that followed previous instances of conflict (other temporarily ambiguous sentences) to those that followed a previous low-conflict (unambiguous) sentence. A midfrontal theta effect associated with linguistic conflict was again found in Experiment 2, such that theta was increased for temporarily ambiguous sentences that followed previous low-conflict (unambiguous) sentences compared with those that followed previous high-conflict (temporarily ambiguous) sentences. In both experiments, facilitated lexical semantic processing was also observed for words that came after the point of conflict, which may reflect a downstream "benefit" of cognitive control engagement. Overall, our results provide novel insights into the neurocognitive mechanisms underlying conflict processing in language comprehension and suggest that the same neural computations are involved in processing nonlinguistic and linguistic conflict.

References

Altarriba J, Gianico J . Lexical ambiguity resolution across languages: a theoretical and empirical review. Exp Psychol. 2003; 50(3):159-70. DOI: 10.1026//1617-3169.50.3.159. View

Botvinick M, Braver T, Barch D, Carter C, Cohen J . Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychol Rev. 2001; 108(3):624-52. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295x.108.3.624. View

Botvinick M, Cohen J, Carter C . Conflict monitoring and anterior cingulate cortex: an update. Trends Cogn Sci. 2004; 8(12):539-46. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2004.10.003. View

Boudewyn M, Long D, Swaab T . Cognitive control influences the use of meaning relations during spoken sentence comprehension. Neuropsychologia. 2012; 50(11):2659-68. PMC: 4780850. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2012.07.019. View

Boudewyn M, Erickson M, Winsler K, Ragland J, Yonelinas A, Frank M . Managing EEG studies: How to prepare and what to do once data collection has begun. Psychophysiology. 2023; 60(11):e14365. PMC: 11276027. DOI: 10.1111/psyp.14365. View

Brothers T, Swaab T, Traxler M . Effects of prediction and contextual support on lexical processing: prediction takes precedence. Cognition. 2014; 136:135-49. PMC: 4308503. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2014.10.017. View

Brothers T, Zeitlin M, Perrachione A, Choi C, Kuperberg G . Domain-general conflict monitoring predicts neural and behavioral indices of linguistic error processing during reading comprehension. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2021; 151(7):1502-1519. PMC: 9888606. DOI: 10.1037/xge0001130. View

Brouwer H, Crocker M, Venhuizen N, Hoeks J . A Neurocomputational Model of the N400 and the P600 in Language Processing. Cogn Sci. 2016; 41 Suppl 6:1318-1352. PMC: 5484319. DOI: 10.1111/cogs.12461. View

Carter C, Braver T, Barch D, Botvinick M, Noll D, Cohen J . Anterior cingulate cortex, error detection, and the online monitoring of performance. Science. 1998; 280(5364):747-9. DOI: 10.1126/science.280.5364.747. View

10.

Cavanagh J, Frank M . Frontal theta as a mechanism for cognitive control. Trends Cogn Sci. 2014; 18(8):414-21. PMC: 4112145. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2014.04.012. View

11.

Cavanagh J, Cohen M, Allen J . Prelude to and resolution of an error: EEG phase synchrony reveals cognitive control dynamics during action monitoring. J Neurosci. 2009; 29(1):98-105. PMC: 2742325. DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4137-08.2009. View

12.

Cavanagh J, Zambrano-Vazquez L, Allen J . Theta lingua franca: a common mid-frontal substrate for action monitoring processes. Psychophysiology. 2011; 49(2):220-38. PMC: 3262926. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2011.01293.x. View

13.

Cohen M, Donner T . Midfrontal conflict-related theta-band power reflects neural oscillations that predict behavior. J Neurophysiol. 2013; 110(12):2752-63. DOI: 10.1152/jn.00479.2013. View

14.

Delorme A, Makeig S . EEGLAB: an open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis. J Neurosci Methods. 2004; 134(1):9-21. DOI: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2003.10.009. View

15.

Egner T, Delano M, Hirsch J . Separate conflict-specific cognitive control mechanisms in the human brain. Neuroimage. 2007; 35(2):940-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.11.061. View

16.

Eisma J, Rawls E, Long S, Mach R, Lamm C . Frontal midline theta differentiates separate cognitive control strategies while still generalizing the need for cognitive control. Sci Rep. 2021; 11(1):14641. PMC: 8290013. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-94162-z. View

17.

Eschmann K, Bader R, Mecklinger A . Topographical differences of frontal-midline theta activity reflect functional differences in cognitive control abilities. Brain Cogn. 2018; 123:57-64. DOI: 10.1016/j.bandc.2018.02.002. View

18.

Falkenstein M, Hohnsbein J, Hoormann J, Blanke L . Effects of crossmodal divided attention on late ERP components. II. Error processing in choice reaction tasks. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1991; 78(6):447-55. DOI: 10.1016/0013-4694(91)90062-9. View

19.

Gratton G, Coles M, Donchin E . Optimizing the use of information: strategic control of activation of responses. J Exp Psychol Gen. 1992; 121(4):480-506. DOI: 10.1037//0096-3445.121.4.480. View

20.

Hsu N, Novick J . Dynamic Engagement of Cognitive Control Modulates Recovery From Misinterpretation During Real-Time Language Processing. Psychol Sci. 2016; 27(4):572-82. PMC: 4833548. DOI: 10.1177/0956797615625223. View