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

Theta-power sources before and after naming, localized by means of DICS (see Methods). Sources in red show a power increase in 3–7 Hz for contrasting same-speaker, precedent mismatch vs. same-speaker, no precedent in the post-naming interval compared with the same contrast in the pre-naming interval. Within the same-speaker condition, we compared precedent mismatch vs. no precedent conditions separately for the post- and the pre-naming intervals and for each participant (first step) and then employed a group-level statistic (second step) for comparing the 2 intervals. The color-coded scale represents t-values. For source labels, see Figure 4. Further source details are reported in Supplementary Table S2.
© Copyright Policy - creative-commons
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

BHU116F5: Theta-power sources before and after naming, localized by means of DICS (see Methods). Sources in red show a power increase in 3–7 Hz for contrasting same-speaker, precedent mismatch vs. same-speaker, no precedent in the post-naming interval compared with the same contrast in the pre-naming interval. Within the same-speaker condition, we compared precedent mismatch vs. no precedent conditions separately for the post- and the pre-naming intervals and for each participant (first step) and then employed a group-level statistic (second step) for comparing the 2 intervals. The color-coded scale represents t-values. For source labels, see Figure 4. Further source details are reported in Supplementary Table S2.

Mentions: Finally, in order to substantiate whether the sources observed for theta power in the post-naming interval, particularly in mentalizing areas, were indeed significantly less active in the pre-naming interval, we compared the 2 time periods directly by means of another two-step analysis. For the pre-naming interval, we chose a time window between −800 and −200 ms, of the same length as the 200- to 800-ms post-naming interval. The first step comprised of comparing the precedent mismatch to the no precedent condition for same speaker (controlling for low-level sensory differences) both pre- and post-naming. The pre-naming contrast was compared with the post-naming contrast in the second step. This led to 1 positive cluster (P = 0.006), see Figure 5 (and Supplementary Table S2). The results further corroborate our interpretation that most theta sources observed in the previous analysis and particularly those in typical mentalizing (and related social) areas such as TPJ, PC, TP, and parts of the vmPFC showed significantly stronger activation for same-speaker, precedent mismatch vs. no precedent trials in the post-naming interval. The right PHG and bilateral visual areas (occipital OCC) also revealed significantly stronger theta power for this comparison in the post-naming interval. Based on the existing literature (see Introduction), this suggests stronger episodic retrieval in the right hemisphere along with stronger visual processing in response to the naming mismatch. Left TC activation could indicate that a mismatch with an anticipated precedent (as compared with just hearing a new name without any precedent) may have led to more prominent language area activation than building up anticipation for a certain term pre-naming. As a form of "reality check," left motor areas (MC) also showed up in this analysis. This was expected because no difference in motor response should be present pre-naming, whereas after naming, response processing was stronger for precedent mismatch than for no precedent trials.Figure 5.


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

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

Theta-power sources before and after naming, localized by means of DICS (see Methods). Sources in red show a power increase in 3–7 Hz for contrasting same-speaker, precedent mismatch vs. same-speaker, no precedent in the post-naming interval compared with the same contrast in the pre-naming interval. Within the same-speaker condition, we compared precedent mismatch vs. no precedent conditions separately for the post- and the pre-naming intervals and for each participant (first step) and then employed a group-level statistic (second step) for comparing the 2 intervals. The color-coded scale represents t-values. For source labels, see Figure 4. Further source details are reported in Supplementary Table S2.
© Copyright Policy - creative-commons
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

BHU116F5: Theta-power sources before and after naming, localized by means of DICS (see Methods). Sources in red show a power increase in 3–7 Hz for contrasting same-speaker, precedent mismatch vs. same-speaker, no precedent in the post-naming interval compared with the same contrast in the pre-naming interval. Within the same-speaker condition, we compared precedent mismatch vs. no precedent conditions separately for the post- and the pre-naming intervals and for each participant (first step) and then employed a group-level statistic (second step) for comparing the 2 intervals. The color-coded scale represents t-values. For source labels, see Figure 4. Further source details are reported in Supplementary Table S2.
Mentions: Finally, in order to substantiate whether the sources observed for theta power in the post-naming interval, particularly in mentalizing areas, were indeed significantly less active in the pre-naming interval, we compared the 2 time periods directly by means of another two-step analysis. For the pre-naming interval, we chose a time window between −800 and −200 ms, of the same length as the 200- to 800-ms post-naming interval. The first step comprised of comparing the precedent mismatch to the no precedent condition for same speaker (controlling for low-level sensory differences) both pre- and post-naming. The pre-naming contrast was compared with the post-naming contrast in the second step. This led to 1 positive cluster (P = 0.006), see Figure 5 (and Supplementary Table S2). The results further corroborate our interpretation that most theta sources observed in the previous analysis and particularly those in typical mentalizing (and related social) areas such as TPJ, PC, TP, and parts of the vmPFC showed significantly stronger activation for same-speaker, precedent mismatch vs. no precedent trials in the post-naming interval. The right PHG and bilateral visual areas (occipital OCC) also revealed significantly stronger theta power for this comparison in the post-naming interval. Based on the existing literature (see Introduction), this suggests stronger episodic retrieval in the right hemisphere along with stronger visual processing in response to the naming mismatch. Left TC activation could indicate that a mismatch with an anticipated precedent (as compared with just hearing a new name without any precedent) may have led to more prominent language area activation than building up anticipation for a certain term pre-naming. As a form of "reality check," left motor areas (MC) also showed up in this analysis. This was expected because no difference in motor response should be present pre-naming, whereas after naming, response processing was stronger for precedent mismatch than for no precedent trials.Figure 5.

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