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

Time-frequency representations. Effects were found in theta (4–6 Hz) between 350 and 650 ms, only for the precedent effect within the same-speaker condition (top row), but not within the different-speaker condition (bottom row). Colors in the topographical plots on the left indicate differences in power (precedent mismatch minus no precedent), relative to a baseline time window (−1000 to −800 ms, just before display of the picture). Channels participating in the significant cluster in a representative time window (450–500 ms) are indicated by black dots. White circles indicate the channel shown in the 4 time-frequency plots on the right, showing power, relative to the baseline time window for each of the 4 conditions. White squares indicate the location of the effect in time and frequencies. Results for alpha and gamma frequencies are reported in Supplementary Figure S1.
© Copyright Policy - creative-commons
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

BHU116F3: Time-frequency representations. Effects were found in theta (4–6 Hz) between 350 and 650 ms, only for the precedent effect within the same-speaker condition (top row), but not within the different-speaker condition (bottom row). Colors in the topographical plots on the left indicate differences in power (precedent mismatch minus no precedent), relative to a baseline time window (−1000 to −800 ms, just before display of the picture). Channels participating in the significant cluster in a representative time window (450–500 ms) are indicated by black dots. White circles indicate the channel shown in the 4 time-frequency plots on the right, showing power, relative to the baseline time window for each of the 4 conditions. White squares indicate the location of the effect in time and frequencies. Results for alpha and gamma frequencies are reported in Supplementary Figure S1.

Mentions: Analyses were time-aligned to the onset of the spoken expression, such that negative values of the time variable represent processes taking place during the picture preview (pre-naming), whereas positive values represent processes taking place after onset of the verbal expression (post-naming). Consistent with other studies reporting theta oscillations in the context of episodic working memory and language processing (e.g., Bastiaansen et al. 2002; Hagoort et al. 2004; Bastiaansen et al. 2005; Jensen and Colgin 2007; Fuentemilla et al. 2010; Giraud and Poeppel 2012), we found significant modulations of frequencies between 4 and 6 Hz. A time-frequency analysis at the sensor level between −800 and 1000 ms in the range of 2–30 Hz revealed a significant cluster (P = 0.012) in the theta range (4–6 Hz) for the precedent mismatch vs. no precedent comparison within the same-speaker condition, in a time window around 350–650 ms after naming onset (Fig. 3, top row). The corresponding comparison for different speaker did not reveal a significant effect in theta (Fig. 3, bottom row) or any other frequency (see Supplementary Fig. S1), corroborating the special status of the same-speaker, precedent mismatch trials observed in the behavioral data.Figure 3.


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

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

Time-frequency representations. Effects were found in theta (4–6 Hz) between 350 and 650 ms, only for the precedent effect within the same-speaker condition (top row), but not within the different-speaker condition (bottom row). Colors in the topographical plots on the left indicate differences in power (precedent mismatch minus no precedent), relative to a baseline time window (−1000 to −800 ms, just before display of the picture). Channels participating in the significant cluster in a representative time window (450–500 ms) are indicated by black dots. White circles indicate the channel shown in the 4 time-frequency plots on the right, showing power, relative to the baseline time window for each of the 4 conditions. White squares indicate the location of the effect in time and frequencies. Results for alpha and gamma frequencies are reported in Supplementary Figure S1.
© Copyright Policy - creative-commons
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

BHU116F3: Time-frequency representations. Effects were found in theta (4–6 Hz) between 350 and 650 ms, only for the precedent effect within the same-speaker condition (top row), but not within the different-speaker condition (bottom row). Colors in the topographical plots on the left indicate differences in power (precedent mismatch minus no precedent), relative to a baseline time window (−1000 to −800 ms, just before display of the picture). Channels participating in the significant cluster in a representative time window (450–500 ms) are indicated by black dots. White circles indicate the channel shown in the 4 time-frequency plots on the right, showing power, relative to the baseline time window for each of the 4 conditions. White squares indicate the location of the effect in time and frequencies. Results for alpha and gamma frequencies are reported in Supplementary Figure S1.
Mentions: Analyses were time-aligned to the onset of the spoken expression, such that negative values of the time variable represent processes taking place during the picture preview (pre-naming), whereas positive values represent processes taking place after onset of the verbal expression (post-naming). Consistent with other studies reporting theta oscillations in the context of episodic working memory and language processing (e.g., Bastiaansen et al. 2002; Hagoort et al. 2004; Bastiaansen et al. 2005; Jensen and Colgin 2007; Fuentemilla et al. 2010; Giraud and Poeppel 2012), we found significant modulations of frequencies between 4 and 6 Hz. A time-frequency analysis at the sensor level between −800 and 1000 ms in the range of 2–30 Hz revealed a significant cluster (P = 0.012) in the theta range (4–6 Hz) for the precedent mismatch vs. no precedent comparison within the same-speaker condition, in a time window around 350–650 ms after naming onset (Fig. 3, top row). The corresponding comparison for different speaker did not reveal a significant effect in theta (Fig. 3, bottom row) or any other frequency (see Supplementary Fig. S1), corroborating the special status of the same-speaker, precedent mismatch trials observed in the behavioral data.Figure 3.

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