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

Sensor-level ERF effects. Sensor-level ERF comparisons for same-speaker deliberation trials (dotted dark blue line) compared with the same-speaker, no precedent trials (light blue line). Black asterisks indicate channels participating in significant clusters for this contrast in a representative time window. Two different time windows are shown: left = pre-naming; right = post-naming. The solid dark blue line representing all same-speaker, precedent mismatch trials is added for comparison. See also Supplementary Figure S2 for all sensor-level ERF results.
© Copyright Policy - creative-commons
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

BHU116F7: Sensor-level ERF effects. Sensor-level ERF comparisons for same-speaker deliberation trials (dotted dark blue line) compared with the same-speaker, no precedent trials (light blue line). Black asterisks indicate channels participating in significant clusters for this contrast in a representative time window. Two different time windows are shown: left = pre-naming; right = post-naming. The solid dark blue line representing all same-speaker, precedent mismatch trials is added for comparison. See also Supplementary Figure S2 for all sensor-level ERF results.

Mentions: Note that pre-selecting these trials is especially favorable toward a central, anticipatory view of mentalizing and works against more “on-demand,” egocentric accounts. If participants give a "different picture" response, they show evidence that they took the perspective of the speaker and noted that she probably sees a different picture if using a different name than before. Slow responses at least indicate that participants probably did not expect this name, possibly because they used mentalizing to anticipate a certain name. Hence, if even this subset of trials does not support anticipatory mentalizing activity in the pre-naming interval, this would provide a strong argument against the idea that listeners use mentalizing spontaneously to generate speaker-specific linguistic predictions. Deliberative trial selection was applied separately for time- and frequency-data, yet only evoked responses in the time-domain (ERF; cf. ERP) revealed significant anticipatory effects in the pre-naming interval (Fig. 7). Complete ERF results are reported in Supplementary Figure S2.Figure 7.


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

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

Sensor-level ERF effects. Sensor-level ERF comparisons for same-speaker deliberation trials (dotted dark blue line) compared with the same-speaker, no precedent trials (light blue line). Black asterisks indicate channels participating in significant clusters for this contrast in a representative time window. Two different time windows are shown: left = pre-naming; right = post-naming. The solid dark blue line representing all same-speaker, precedent mismatch trials is added for comparison. See also Supplementary Figure S2 for all sensor-level ERF results.
© Copyright Policy - creative-commons
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

BHU116F7: Sensor-level ERF effects. Sensor-level ERF comparisons for same-speaker deliberation trials (dotted dark blue line) compared with the same-speaker, no precedent trials (light blue line). Black asterisks indicate channels participating in significant clusters for this contrast in a representative time window. Two different time windows are shown: left = pre-naming; right = post-naming. The solid dark blue line representing all same-speaker, precedent mismatch trials is added for comparison. See also Supplementary Figure S2 for all sensor-level ERF results.
Mentions: Note that pre-selecting these trials is especially favorable toward a central, anticipatory view of mentalizing and works against more “on-demand,” egocentric accounts. If participants give a "different picture" response, they show evidence that they took the perspective of the speaker and noted that she probably sees a different picture if using a different name than before. Slow responses at least indicate that participants probably did not expect this name, possibly because they used mentalizing to anticipate a certain name. Hence, if even this subset of trials does not support anticipatory mentalizing activity in the pre-naming interval, this would provide a strong argument against the idea that listeners use mentalizing spontaneously to generate speaker-specific linguistic predictions. Deliberative trial selection was applied separately for time- and frequency-data, yet only evoked responses in the time-domain (ERF; cf. ERP) revealed significant anticipatory effects in the pre-naming interval (Fig. 7). Complete ERF results are reported in Supplementary Figure S2.Figure 7.

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