Limits...
Neural Correlates of Subliminal Language Processing.

Axelrod V, Bar M, Rees G, Yovel G - Cereb. Cortex (2014)

Bottom Line: The results of several functional magnetic resonance imaging studies have suggested that unconscious lexical and semantic processing is confined to the posterior temporal lobe, without involvement of the frontal lobe-the regions that are indispensable for conscious language processing.We found that subjectively and objectively invisible meaningful sentences and unpronounceable nonwords could be discriminated not only in the left posterior superior temporal sulcus (STS), but critically, also in the left middle frontal gyrus.We conclude that frontal lobes play a role in unconscious language processing and that activation of the frontal lobes per se might not be sufficient for achieving conscious awareness.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: The Gonda Multidisciplinary Brain Research Center, Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel UCL Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Discrimination between subliminal meaningful sentences and nonwords in language network regions for ROI size of 50, 100, and 150 voxels. Grey line represents a chance level of performance (50%); error bars denote standard error of the mean.
© Copyright Policy - creative-commons
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4494027&req=5

BHU022F4: Discrimination between subliminal meaningful sentences and nonwords in language network regions for ROI size of 50, 100, and 150 voxels. Grey line represents a chance level of performance (50%); error bars denote standard error of the mean.

Mentions: Finally, to ensure that the reported result was not idiosyncratic for a specific ROI size, we repeated the multivariate analyses for the ROI size of 50 and 150 voxels. As in the main analysis, the significance was assessed based on Bonferroni multiple comparison correction for each ROI size (see Materials and Methods). The results of this analysis are shown in Figure 4. Critically, for both left posterior STS and the left middle frontal gyrus the prediction rate was always significantly above chance: left posterior STS [50 voxels: prediction rate: 56.4%, MSE: 2.1%, t(14) = 3.02, P = 0.004; 150 voxels: prediction rate: 56.7%, MSE: 1.9%, t(14) = 3.6, P = 0.001)], left middle frontal gyrus [50 voxels: prediction rate: 54.2%, MSE: 1.4%, t(14) = 2.99, P = 0.004; 150 voxels: prediction rate: 56.4%, MSE: 1.6%, t(14) = 3.97, P < 0.001]. Consistent with our main analysis the prediction rate was also above chance in the right posterior STS, but statistical significance was not reached after multiple comparison correction [50 voxels: prediction rate: 53.7%, MSE: 1.9%, t(14) = 1.94, P = 0.04; 150 voxels: prediction rate: 55.3%, MSE: 2.2%, t(14) = 2.4, P = 0.01]. Performance did not differ from chance in left angular gyrus: [50 voxels: prediction rate: 52.6%, MSE: 2.8%, t(14) < 1; 150 voxels: prediction rate: 53.5%, MSE: 2.9%, t(14) = 1.19, P < 0.12], left supramarginal gyrus: [50 voxels: prediction rate: 55%, MSE: 2.2%, t(14) = 2.29, P = 0.018; 150 voxels: prediction rate: 52%, MSE: 3.1%, t(14) < 1], left orbital inferior frontal gyrus [50 voxels: prediction rate: 53%, MSE: 2.5%, t(14) = 1.23, P = 0.12; 150 voxels: prediction rate: 53.5%, MSE: 2.6%, t(14) = 1.37, P = 0.09], left superior frontal gyrus [50 voxels: prediction rate: 53.8%, MSE: 2.2%, t(14) = 1.73, P = 0.05; 150 voxels: prediction rate: 50.2%, MSE: 2.5%, t(14) < 1]. In left middle anterior temporal, left anterior temporal, left inferior frontal gyrus and right middle anterior temporal the prediction rate also did not differ from chance and was <52.5% [t(14) < 1]. The results of this analysis suggest that both the left posterior STS and the left middle frontal gyrus contained the information, which permitted reliable discrimination between meaningful sentences and nonwords across different ROI sizes.Figure 4.


Neural Correlates of Subliminal Language Processing.

Axelrod V, Bar M, Rees G, Yovel G - Cereb. Cortex (2014)

Discrimination between subliminal meaningful sentences and nonwords in language network regions for ROI size of 50, 100, and 150 voxels. Grey line represents a chance level of performance (50%); error bars denote standard error of the mean.
© Copyright Policy - creative-commons
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4494027&req=5

BHU022F4: Discrimination between subliminal meaningful sentences and nonwords in language network regions for ROI size of 50, 100, and 150 voxels. Grey line represents a chance level of performance (50%); error bars denote standard error of the mean.
Mentions: Finally, to ensure that the reported result was not idiosyncratic for a specific ROI size, we repeated the multivariate analyses for the ROI size of 50 and 150 voxels. As in the main analysis, the significance was assessed based on Bonferroni multiple comparison correction for each ROI size (see Materials and Methods). The results of this analysis are shown in Figure 4. Critically, for both left posterior STS and the left middle frontal gyrus the prediction rate was always significantly above chance: left posterior STS [50 voxels: prediction rate: 56.4%, MSE: 2.1%, t(14) = 3.02, P = 0.004; 150 voxels: prediction rate: 56.7%, MSE: 1.9%, t(14) = 3.6, P = 0.001)], left middle frontal gyrus [50 voxels: prediction rate: 54.2%, MSE: 1.4%, t(14) = 2.99, P = 0.004; 150 voxels: prediction rate: 56.4%, MSE: 1.6%, t(14) = 3.97, P < 0.001]. Consistent with our main analysis the prediction rate was also above chance in the right posterior STS, but statistical significance was not reached after multiple comparison correction [50 voxels: prediction rate: 53.7%, MSE: 1.9%, t(14) = 1.94, P = 0.04; 150 voxels: prediction rate: 55.3%, MSE: 2.2%, t(14) = 2.4, P = 0.01]. Performance did not differ from chance in left angular gyrus: [50 voxels: prediction rate: 52.6%, MSE: 2.8%, t(14) < 1; 150 voxels: prediction rate: 53.5%, MSE: 2.9%, t(14) = 1.19, P < 0.12], left supramarginal gyrus: [50 voxels: prediction rate: 55%, MSE: 2.2%, t(14) = 2.29, P = 0.018; 150 voxels: prediction rate: 52%, MSE: 3.1%, t(14) < 1], left orbital inferior frontal gyrus [50 voxels: prediction rate: 53%, MSE: 2.5%, t(14) = 1.23, P = 0.12; 150 voxels: prediction rate: 53.5%, MSE: 2.6%, t(14) = 1.37, P = 0.09], left superior frontal gyrus [50 voxels: prediction rate: 53.8%, MSE: 2.2%, t(14) = 1.73, P = 0.05; 150 voxels: prediction rate: 50.2%, MSE: 2.5%, t(14) < 1]. In left middle anterior temporal, left anterior temporal, left inferior frontal gyrus and right middle anterior temporal the prediction rate also did not differ from chance and was <52.5% [t(14) < 1]. The results of this analysis suggest that both the left posterior STS and the left middle frontal gyrus contained the information, which permitted reliable discrimination between meaningful sentences and nonwords across different ROI sizes.Figure 4.

Bottom Line: The results of several functional magnetic resonance imaging studies have suggested that unconscious lexical and semantic processing is confined to the posterior temporal lobe, without involvement of the frontal lobe-the regions that are indispensable for conscious language processing.We found that subjectively and objectively invisible meaningful sentences and unpronounceable nonwords could be discriminated not only in the left posterior superior temporal sulcus (STS), but critically, also in the left middle frontal gyrus.We conclude that frontal lobes play a role in unconscious language processing and that activation of the frontal lobes per se might not be sufficient for achieving conscious awareness.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: The Gonda Multidisciplinary Brain Research Center, Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel UCL Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus