Limits...
Conversational Interaction in the Scanner: Mentalizing during Language Processing as Revealed by MEG.

Bögels S, Barr DJ, Garrod S, Kessler K - Cereb. Cortex (2014)

Bottom Line: Our analysis of the neural processing of test phase utterances revealed recruitment of neural circuits associated with language (temporal cortex), episodic memory (e.g., medial temporal lobe), and mentalizing (temporo-parietal junction and ventromedial prefrontal cortex).The episodic memory and language circuits were recruited in anticipation of upcoming referring expressions, suggesting that context-sensitive predictions were spontaneously generated.In contrast, the mentalizing areas were recruited on-demand, as a means for detecting and resolving perceived pragmatic anomalies, with little evidence they were activated to make partner-specific predictions about upcoming linguistic utterances.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, The Netherlands Institute of Neuroscience and Psychology, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Behavioral responses; RT (left) and choice responses (“different” or “same” picture; right). *P < 0.05; **P < 0.001.
© Copyright Policy - creative-commons
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4537451&req=5

BHU116F2: Behavioral responses; RT (left) and choice responses (“different” or “same” picture; right). *P < 0.05; **P < 0.001.

Mentions: Confirming the results of previous studies (Metzing and Brennan 2003; Kronmüller and Barr 2007; Matthews et al. 2010), our behavioral results indicated that listeners experienced greater confusion for precedent mismatches produced by the same speaker as compared with those produced by a different speaker. Figure 2 shows that both reaction times and choices revealed an interaction between speaker (same/different) and precedent (mismatch/no). ANOVAs confirmed the prediction of a larger precedent mismatch vs. no precedent effect in the same speaker than the different-speaker case for RT (longer RTs, F1,15 = 8.43, P = 0.011) and for response choices (more "different" responses; F1,15 = 21.15, P < 0.001). These interaction effects allowed us to specifically search for the neural substrates involved in generating these effects. We primarily analyzed MEG signals in the frequency domain since this type of analysis (in contrast to averaging, i.e., ERFs) is sensitive to evoked as well as to induced brain signals (e.g., Pfurtscheller and Lopes da Silva 1999). We found strong effects in the theta band (4–6 Hz) that reflected widespread differences in cortical activity across conditions. These will be reported in the next section, whereas the more confined effects in alpha (9–13 Hz) and gamma (66–78 Hz) are reported in Supplementary Figure S1.Figure 2.


Conversational Interaction in the Scanner: Mentalizing during Language Processing as Revealed by MEG.

Bögels S, Barr DJ, Garrod S, Kessler K - Cereb. Cortex (2014)

Behavioral responses; RT (left) and choice responses (“different” or “same” picture; right). *P < 0.05; **P < 0.001.
© Copyright Policy - creative-commons
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4537451&req=5

BHU116F2: Behavioral responses; RT (left) and choice responses (“different” or “same” picture; right). *P < 0.05; **P < 0.001.
Mentions: Confirming the results of previous studies (Metzing and Brennan 2003; Kronmüller and Barr 2007; Matthews et al. 2010), our behavioral results indicated that listeners experienced greater confusion for precedent mismatches produced by the same speaker as compared with those produced by a different speaker. Figure 2 shows that both reaction times and choices revealed an interaction between speaker (same/different) and precedent (mismatch/no). ANOVAs confirmed the prediction of a larger precedent mismatch vs. no precedent effect in the same speaker than the different-speaker case for RT (longer RTs, F1,15 = 8.43, P = 0.011) and for response choices (more "different" responses; F1,15 = 21.15, P < 0.001). These interaction effects allowed us to specifically search for the neural substrates involved in generating these effects. We primarily analyzed MEG signals in the frequency domain since this type of analysis (in contrast to averaging, i.e., ERFs) is sensitive to evoked as well as to induced brain signals (e.g., Pfurtscheller and Lopes da Silva 1999). We found strong effects in the theta band (4–6 Hz) that reflected widespread differences in cortical activity across conditions. These will be reported in the next section, whereas the more confined effects in alpha (9–13 Hz) and gamma (66–78 Hz) are reported in Supplementary Figure S1.Figure 2.

Bottom Line: Our analysis of the neural processing of test phase utterances revealed recruitment of neural circuits associated with language (temporal cortex), episodic memory (e.g., medial temporal lobe), and mentalizing (temporo-parietal junction and ventromedial prefrontal cortex).The episodic memory and language circuits were recruited in anticipation of upcoming referring expressions, suggesting that context-sensitive predictions were spontaneously generated.In contrast, the mentalizing areas were recruited on-demand, as a means for detecting and resolving perceived pragmatic anomalies, with little evidence they were activated to make partner-specific predictions about upcoming linguistic utterances.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, The Netherlands Institute of Neuroscience and Psychology, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus