Electrophysiological insights into the processing of nominal metaphors

Neuropsychologia

Volumn 48, Issue 7, 2010, Pages 1965-1984

  De Grauwe, Sophie ^a,c,d,e   Swain, Abigail ^a   Holcomb, Phillip J ^a   Ditman, Tali ^a,b   Kuperberg, Gina R ^a,b  

^a TUFTS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

^c RADBOUD UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^d UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^e UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

ERP; Language; LPC; Metaphor; N400; P600; Semantic

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BEHAVIOR; BRAIN ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY; COGNITION; CONTROLLED STUDY; EVENT RELATED POTENTIAL; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LANGUAGE; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; SEMANTIC MEMORY; SEMANTICS; STIMULUS;

ADOLESCENT; BRAIN; BRAIN MAPPING; COMPREHENSION; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY; EVOKED POTENTIALS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; METAPHOR; PROBABILITY; REACTION TIME; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY); SEMANTICS; TIME FACTORS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 77953028296     PISSN: 00283932     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.03.017     Document Type: Article

References (92)

1. Arzouan Y., Goldstein A., Faust M. Brain waves are stethoscopes: ERP correlates of novel metaphor comprehension. Brain Research 2007, 1160:69-81.
2. Bentin S., Bargai N., Katz L. Orthographic and phonemic coding for lexical access: Evidence from Hebrew. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition 1984, 10:353-368.
3. Blasko D.G., Connine C.M. Effects of familiarity and aptness on metaphor processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 1993, 19:295-308.
4. Bottini G., Corcoran R., Sterzi R., Paulesu E., Schenone P., Scarpa P., et al. The role of the right hemisphere in the interpretation of figurative aspects of language. A positron emission tomography activation study. Brain 1994, 117:1241-1253.
5. Brisard F., Frisson S., Sandra D. Processing unfamiliar metaphors in a self-paced reading task. Metaphor and Symbol 2001, 16:87-108.
6. Chwilla D.J., Kolk H.H.J. Event-related potential and reaction time evidence for inhibition between alternative meanings of ambiguous words. Brain and Language 2003, 86:167-192.
7. Chwilla D.J., Kolk H.H.J., Mulder G. Mediated priming in the lexical decision task: Evidence from event-related potentials and reaction time. Journal of Memory and Language 2000, 42:314-341.
8. Coulson S., King J.W., Kutas M. Expect the unexpected: Event-related brain response to morphosyntactic violations. Language & Cognitive Processes 1998, 13:21-58.
9. Coulson S., Van Petten C. Conceptual integration and metaphor: An event-related potential study. Memory & Cognition 2002, 30:958-968.
10. Coulson S., Van Petten C. A special role for the right hemisphere in metaphor comprehension? ERP evidence from hemifield presentation. Brain Research 2007, 1146:128-145.
11. Coulson S., Williams R.F. Hemispheric asymmetries and joke comprehension. Neuropsychologia 2005, 43:128-141.
12. Coulson S., Wu Y.C. Right hemisphere activation of joke-related information: An event-related brain potential study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2005, 17:494-506.
13. Ditman T., Holcomb P., Kuperberg G. An investigation of concurrent ERP and self-paced reading methodologies. Psychophysiology 2007, 44:927-935.
14. Donchin E., Coles M. Is the P300 component a manifestation of context updating?. Behavioral and Brain Science 1988, 11:355-372.
15. Elston-Güttler K.E., Friederici A.D. Native and L2 processing of homonyms in sentential context. Journal of Memory and Language 2005, 52:256-283.
16. Faust M., Weisper S. Understanding metaphoric sentences in the two cerebral hemispheres. Brain & Cognition 2000, 43:186-191.
17. Federmeier K.D., Kutas M. A rose by any other name: Long-term memory structure and sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language 1999, 41:469-495.
18. Federmeier K.D., Wlotko E.W., De Ochoa-Dewald E., Kutas M. Multiple effects of sentential constraint on word processing. Brain Research 2007, 1146:75-84.
19. Frazier L., Rayner K. Taking on semantic commitments: Processing multiple meanings vs. multiple senses. Journal of Memory and Language 1990, 29:181-200.
20. Friederici A., Hahne A., Saddy D. Distinct neurophysiological patterns reflecting aspects of syntactic complexity and syntactic repair. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 2004, 31:45-63.
21. Friedman D., Simson R., Ritter W., Rapin I. The late positive component (P300) and information processing in sentences. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology 1975, 38:255-262.
22. Gibbs R.W. A new look at literal meaning in understanding what is said and implicated. Journal of Pragmatics 2002, 34:457-486.
23. Gibbs R.W., Gerrig R.J. How context makes metaphor comprehension seem " special" Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 1989, 4:145-158.
24. Giora R. Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics 1997, 8:183-206.
25. Giora R. Literal vs. figurative language: Different or equal?. Journal of Pragmatics 2002, 34:487-506.
26. Giora R., Fein O. On understanding familiar and less-familiar figurative language. Journal of Pragmatics 1999, 31:1601-1618.
27. Glucksberg S. The psycholinguistics of metaphor. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2003, 7:92-96.
28. Glucksberg S., Gildea P., Bookin M.B. On understanding nonliteral speech: Can people ignore metaphors?. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior 1982, 21:85-98.
29. Greenhouse S., Geisser S. On methods in the analysis of profile data. Psychometrika 1959, 24:95-112.
30. Grice H.P. Logic and conversation. Speech acts. Syntax and semantics 1975, Vol. 3:41-58. Academic Press, New York.
31. Hagoort P. Interplay between syntax and semantics during sentence comprehension: ERP effects of combining syntactic and semantic violations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2003, 15:883-899.
32. Hagoort P., Baggio G., Willems R.M. Semantic unification. The new cognitive neurosciences 2009, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. M.S. Gazzaniga (Ed.).
33. Hagoort P., Brown C. Brain responses to lexical ambiguity resolution and parsing. Perspectives on sentence processing 1994, 45-80. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. C. Clifton, L. Frazier, K. Rayner (Eds.).
34. Hagoort P., Brown C. ERP effects of listening to speech: Semantic ERP effects. Neuropsychologia 2000, 38:1518-1530.
35. Hagoort P., Brown C., Groothusen J. The syntactic positive shift (SPS). as an ERP measure of syntactic processing. Language and cognitive processes. Special Issue: Event-related brain potentials in the study of language 1993, Vol. 8 (4):439-483. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hove.
36. Hagoort P., Hald L., Bastiaansen M., Petersson K. Integration of word meaning and world knowledge in language comprehension. Science 2004, 304:438-441.
37. Heeger, D. (2003). Signal detection theory [WWW page]. URL http://www.cns.nyu.edu/~david/sdt/sdt.html.
38. Hoeks J.C.J., Stowe L.A., Doedens G. Seeing words in context: The interaction of lexical and sentence level information during reading. Cognitive Brain Research 2004, 19:59-73.
39. Hoffman R., Kemper S. What could reaction-time studies be telling us about metaphor comprehension?. Metaphor and symbolic activity 1987, 2:149-186.
40. Holcomb P.J., Grainger J. On the time course of visual word recognition: An event-related potential investigation using masked repetition priming. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2006, 18:1631-1643.
41. Iakimova G., Passerieux C., Laurent J.-P., Hardy-Bayle M.-C. ERPs of metaphoric, literal, and incongruous semantic processing in schizophrenia. Psychophysiology 2005, 42:380-390.
42. Jackendoff R. The architecture of the language faculty 1997, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
43. Janus R.A., Bever T.G. Processing of metaphoric language. An investigation of the three stage model of metaphor comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 1985, 14:473-487.
44. Kaan E., Swaab T. Repair, revision and complexity in syntactic analysis: An electrophysiological differentiation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2003, 15:98-110.
45. Katz A., Ferretti T. Moment-by-moment reading of proverbs in literal and nonliteral contexts. Metaphor & Symbol 2001, 16:193-221.
46. Katz A.N., Paivio A., Marschark M., Clark J.M. Norms for 204 literary and 260 nonliterary metaphors on 10 psychological dimensions. Metaphor & Symbolic Activity 1988, 3:191-214.
47. Kazmerski V., Blasko D., Dessalegn B. ERP and behavioral evidence of individual differences in metaphor comprehension. Memory & Cognition 2003, 31:673-689.
48. Kim A., Osterhout L. The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Memory and Language 2005, 52:205-225.
49. Klepousniotou K. The processing of lexical ambiguity: Homonymy and polysemy in the mental lexicon. Brain and Language 2002, 81:205-223.
50. Kolk H.H., Chwilla D.J. Late positivities in unusual situations. Brain and Language 2007, 100:257-261.
51. Kolk H.H., Chwilla D.J., Van Herten M., Oor P.J. Structure and limited capacity in verbal working memory: A study with event-related potentials. Brain & Language 2003, 85:1-36.
52. Kreher D.A., Holcomb P.J., Goff D., Kuperberg G.R. Neural evidence for faster and further automatic spreading activation in schizophrenic thought disorder. Schizophrenia Bulletin 2008, 34:473-482.
53. Kuperberg G.R. Neural mechanisms of language comprehension: Challenges to syntax. Brain Research 2007, 1146:23-49.
54. Kuperberg G., Caplan D., Sitnikova T., Eddy M., Holcomb P. Neural correlates of processing syntactic, semantic and thematic relationships in sentences. Language & Cognitive Processes 2006, 21:489-530.
55. Kuperberg G.R., Holcomb P.J., Sitnikova T., Greve D., Dale A.M., Caplan D. Distinct patterns of neural modulation during the processing of conceptual and syntactic anomalies. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2003, 15:272-293.
56. Kuperberg G., Kreher D., Sitnikova T., Caplan D., Holcomb P. The role of animacy and thematic relationships in processing active English sentences: Evidence from event-related potentials. Brain & Language 2007, 100:223-237.
57. Kuperberg G.R., Sitnikova T., Caplan D., Holcomb P.J. Electrophysiological distinctions in processing conceptual relationships within simple sentences. Cognitive Brain Research 2003, 17(1):117-129.
58. Kuperberg G.R., Sitnikova T., Goff D., Holcomb P.J. Making sense of sentences in schizophrenia: Electrophysiological evidence for abnormal interactions between semantic and syntactic processing. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 2006, 115:243-256.
59. Kutas M., Federmeier K. Electrophysiology reveals semantic memory use in language comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2000, 4:463-470.
60. Kutas M., Hillyard S. Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science 1980, 207:203-205.
61. Kutas M., Hillyard S. Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association. Nature 1984, 307:161-163.
62. Kutas M., Van Petten C.K., Kluender R. Psycholinguistics electrified II (1994-2005). Handbook of psycholinguistics 2006, 659-724. Elsevier Press, New York. 2nd ed. M.A. Gernsbacher, M. Traxler (Eds.).
63. Lai V.T., Curran T., Menn L. Comprehending conventional and novel metaphors: An ERP study. Brain Research 2009, 1284:145-155.
64. Lakoff G., Johnson M. Metaphors we live by 1980, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
65. Lau E.F., Phillips C., Poeppel D. A cortical network for semantics: (De)constructing the N400. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2008, 9:920-933.
66. Laurent J.-P., Denhieres G., Passerieux C., Iakimova G., Hardy-Bayle M.-C. On understanding idiomatic language: The salience hypothesis assessed by ERPs. Brain Research 2006, 1068:151-160.
67. Lee C., Federmeier K.D. Wave-ering: An ERP study of syntactic and semantic context effects on ambiguity resolution for noun/verb homographs. Journal of Memory and Language 2009, 61:538-555.
68. McElree B., Nordlie J. Literal and figurative interpretations are computed in equal time. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 1999, 6:486-494.
69. Nakano, H., Saron, C., & Swaab, T. Y. (2009). Speech and span: Working memory capacity impacts the use of animacy but not of world knowledge during spoken sentence comprehension. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.
70. Osterhout L. On the brain response to syntactic anomalies: Manipulations of word position and word class reveal individual differences. Brain & Language 1997, 59:494-522.
71. Osterhout L., Hagoort P. A superficial resemblance doesn't necessarily mean you're part of the family: Counterarguments to Coulson, King, and Kutas (1998). in the P600/SPS debate. Language & Cognitive Processes 1999, 14:1-14.
72. Osterhout L., Holcomb P. Event-related potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language 1992, 31:785-806.
73. Osterhout L., Holcomb P. Event-related potentials and syntactic anomaly: Evidence of anomaly detection during the perception of continuous speech. Language and Cognitive Processes 1993, 8:413-437.
74. Pynte J., Besson M., Robichon F.-H., Poli J. The time-course of metaphor comprehension: An event-related potential study. Brain and Language 1996, 55:293-316.
75. Rubio Fernández P. Suppression in metaphor interpretation: Differences between meaning selection and meaning construction. Journal of Semantics 2007, 1-27.
76. Rugg M.D. Event-related potentials and the phonological processing of words and non-words. Neuropsychologia 1984, 22:435-443.
77. Schmidt G.L., DeBuse C., Seger C. Right hemisphere metaphor processing? Characterizing the lateralization of semantic processes. Brain & Language 2007, 100:127-141.
78. Schmidt G.L., Kranjec A., Cardillo E.R., Chatterjee A. Beyond laterality: A critical assessment of research on the neural basis of metaphor. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society 2009, 1-5.
79. Searle J. Expression and meaning 1979, University Press, Cambridge, England.
80. Simpson G.B. Context and the processing of ambiguous words. Handbook of psycholinguistics 1994, 359-374. Academic Press, San Diego. M.A. Gernsbacher (Ed.).
81. Swaab T., Brown C., Hagoort P. Understanding words in sentence contexts: The time course of ambiguity resolution. Brain and Language 2003, 86:326-343.
82. Swinney D.A. Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)consideration of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 1979, 18:645-659.
83. Tabossi P., Zardon F. Processing ambiguous words in context. Journal of Memory and Language 1993, 32:359-372.
84. Tartter V., Gomes H., Dubrovsky B., Molholm S., Vala Stewart R. Novel metaphors appear anomalous at least momentarily: Evidence from N400. Brain & Language 2002, 80:488-509.
85. Van Berkum J.J.A. The neuropragmatics of 'simple' utterance comprehension: An ERP review. Semantics and pragmatics: From experiment to theory. 2009, Palgrave, New York. U. Sauerland, K. Yatsushiro (Eds.).
86. Van Berkum J.J.A., Hagoort P., Brown C.M. Semantic integration in sentences and discourse: Evidence from the N400. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 1999, 11(6):657-671.
87. Van de Meerendonk N., Kolk H.H.J., Chwilla D.J., Vissers C.T.W.M. Monitoring in language perception. Language and Linguistics Compass 2009, 3:1211-1224.
88. Van de Meerendonk N., Kolk H.H.J., Vissers C.T.W.M., Chwilla D.J. Monitoring language perception: Mild and strong conflicts elicit different ERP patterns. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2010, 22:67-82.
89. Van Petten C., Kutas M. Ambiguous words in context: An event-related potential analysis of the time course of meaning activation. Journal of Memory and Language 1987, 26:188-208.
90. Van Petten C., Kutas M. Interactions between sentence context and word frequency in event-related brain potentials. Memory and Cognition 1990, 18:380-393.
91. Wang, S., Ditman, T., Choi, A., & Kuperberg, G. (2010). The effects of task on processing real-world, animacy and syntactically violated sentences [Electronic data file]. URL: http://www.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/kuperberglab/publications/Abstracts/Wang_CNS_2010.pdf.
92. Ye Z., Zhou X. Involvement of cognitive control in sentence comprehension: Evidence from ERPs. Brain Research 2008, 1203:103-115.