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

Significant sources for deliberation trials vs. no precedent (same speaker) using LCMV beam formers (see Methods). Panel A shows sources for the pre-naming interval (together with the corresponding ERF topography from Fig. 7, left). Panel B shows the sources for the late interval (ERF topography from Fig. 7, right). The color-coded scale represents t-values. Source labels do not conform to Figures 4 and 6 apart from POC, parieto-occipital cortex; OTC, occipito-temporal cortex; vlPFC, ventro-lateral prefrontal cortex. Further explanations are in the text and in Supplementary Table S4.
© Copyright Policy - creative-commons
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

BHU116F8: Significant sources for deliberation trials vs. no precedent (same speaker) using LCMV beam formers (see Methods). Panel A shows sources for the pre-naming interval (together with the corresponding ERF topography from Fig. 7, left). Panel B shows the sources for the late interval (ERF topography from Fig. 7, right). The color-coded scale represents t-values. Source labels do not conform to Figures 4 and 6 apart from POC, parieto-occipital cortex; OTC, occipito-temporal cortex; vlPFC, ventro-lateral prefrontal cortex. Further explanations are in the text and in Supplementary Table S4.

Mentions: Focusing on same-speaker deliberation trials, as compared with the same-speaker, no-precedent trials, we found 3 significant clusters between −800 and 1000 ms. Suggesting anticipatory processing, 2 were in the pre-naming preview phase; 1 between −550 and −23 ms (P = 0.004), 1 between −306 and 0 ms (P = 0.004) and both with a predominantly right-hemisphere topography (Fig. 7, left; Fig. 8, Panel A). One cluster (P < 0.00001) lasted between 67 and 680 ms after naming, with a maximum amount of significant channels around 400 ms and a predominantly left-hemisphere topography (Fig. 7, right; Fig. 8, Panel B). Source analysis was then employed for both the pre- and post-naming interval to examine whether the anticipatory clusters involved mentalizing in addition to episodic retrieval.Figure 8.


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

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

Significant sources for deliberation trials vs. no precedent (same speaker) using LCMV beam formers (see Methods). Panel A shows sources for the pre-naming interval (together with the corresponding ERF topography from Fig. 7, left). Panel B shows the sources for the late interval (ERF topography from Fig. 7, right). The color-coded scale represents t-values. Source labels do not conform to Figures 4 and 6 apart from POC, parieto-occipital cortex; OTC, occipito-temporal cortex; vlPFC, ventro-lateral prefrontal cortex. Further explanations are in the text and in Supplementary Table S4.
© Copyright Policy - creative-commons
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

BHU116F8: Significant sources for deliberation trials vs. no precedent (same speaker) using LCMV beam formers (see Methods). Panel A shows sources for the pre-naming interval (together with the corresponding ERF topography from Fig. 7, left). Panel B shows the sources for the late interval (ERF topography from Fig. 7, right). The color-coded scale represents t-values. Source labels do not conform to Figures 4 and 6 apart from POC, parieto-occipital cortex; OTC, occipito-temporal cortex; vlPFC, ventro-lateral prefrontal cortex. Further explanations are in the text and in Supplementary Table S4.
Mentions: Focusing on same-speaker deliberation trials, as compared with the same-speaker, no-precedent trials, we found 3 significant clusters between −800 and 1000 ms. Suggesting anticipatory processing, 2 were in the pre-naming preview phase; 1 between −550 and −23 ms (P = 0.004), 1 between −306 and 0 ms (P = 0.004) and both with a predominantly right-hemisphere topography (Fig. 7, left; Fig. 8, Panel A). One cluster (P < 0.00001) lasted between 67 and 680 ms after naming, with a maximum amount of significant channels around 400 ms and a predominantly left-hemisphere topography (Fig. 7, right; Fig. 8, Panel B). Source analysis was then employed for both the pre- and post-naming interval to examine whether the anticipatory clusters involved mentalizing in addition to episodic retrieval.Figure 8.

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