The influence of sentence novelty and figurativeness on brain activity

Neuropsychologia

Volumn 49, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 320-330

  Diaz, Michele T ^a   Barrett, Kyle T ^a   Hogstrom, Larson J ^a  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Hemispheric contribution; Language; Laterality; Metaphor; Novelty; Semantics

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BRAIN REGION; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAM; FEMALE; FRONTAL GYRUS; FUNCTIONAL MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; HIPPOCAMPUS; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INFERIOR FRONTAL GYRUS; LANGUAGE ABILITY; MALE; MENTAL TASK; MIDDLE TEMPORAL GYRUS; NORMAL HUMAN; RIGHT HEMISPHERE; SEMANTICS; STIMULUS RESPONSE; TASK PERFORMANCE; TEMPORAL GYRUS;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; BRAIN; CEREBRAL CORTEX; COMPREHENSION; FEMALE; FUNCTIONAL LATERALITY; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; LANGUAGE; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; METAPHOR; PHOTIC STIMULATION; PSYCHOLINGUISTICS; REACTION TIME; READING; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 79551477493     PISSN: 00283932     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.12.004     Document Type: Article

References (77)

1. Ahrens K., Liu H.-L., Lee C.-Y., Gong S.-P., Fang S.-Y., Hsu Y.-Y. Functional MRI of conventional and anomalous metaphors in Mandarin Chinese. Brain and Language 2007, 100(2):163-171.
2. Beckman C.F., Jenkinson M., Smith S.M. General multi-level linear modeling for group analysis in FMRI. Neuroimage 2003, 20:1052-1063.
3. Beeman M., Chiarello C. Right hemisphere language comprehension: Perspectives from cognitive neuroscience 1998, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
4. Beeman M., Friedman R.B., Grafman J., Perez E., Diamond S., Lindsay M.B. Summation priming and coarse semantic coding in the right hemisphere. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 1994, 6(1):26-45.
5. Bihrle A.M., Brownell H.H., Powelson J.A., Gardner H. Comprehension of humorous and nonhumorous materials by left and right brain-damaged patients. Brain and Cognition 1986, 5(4):399-411.
6. Bookheimer S. Functional MRI of language: New approaches to understanding the cortical organization of semantic processing. Annual Review of Neuroscience 2002, 25:151-188.
7. 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.
8. Broca P. Remarques sur le siege de la faculte du language articule: suivies d'une observation d'aphemie. Bulletin de la Societe Anatomique de Paris 1861, 6:330-357.
9. Brownell H.H., Simpson T.L., Bihrle A.M., Potter H.H., Gardner H. Appreciation of metaphoric alternative word meanings by left and right brain-damaged patients. Neuropsychologia 1990, 28(4):375-393.
10. Bryan K.L. Assessment of language disorders after right hemisphere damaged. British Journal of Disorders of Communication 1988, 23:11-125.
11. Burgess, C., & Cushman. (1990). Right hemisphere processing of subordinate word meanings: Evidence from brain damaged patients. Paper presented at the International Neuropsychological Society, Orlando, FL.
12. Chen E., Widick P., Chatterjee A. Functional-anatomical organization of predicate metaphor processing. Brain & Language 2008, 107:194-202.
13. Chiarello C. Right hemisphere contributions to lexical semantics 1988, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
14. Coltheart M. The MRC psycholinguistic database. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 1981, 33A:497-505.
15. Coulson S., Van Petten C. Conceptual integration and metaphor: An ERP study. Memory & Cognition 2002, 30:958-968.
16. 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.
17. Davis A.E., Wada J.A. Speech dominance and handedness in the normal human. Brain & Language 1978, 5(1):42-55.
18. Dejerine J. Sur un cas eccite verbale avec graphie, suivi d'autopsie. C. R. Societe du Biologie 1891, 43:197-201.
19. Eviatar Z., Just M.A. Brain correlates of discourse processing: An fMRI investigation of irony and conventional metaphor comprehension. Neuropsychologia 2006, 44(12):2348-2359.
20. Faust M., Babkoff H., Kravetz S. Linguistic processes in the two cerebral hemispheres: Implications for modularity vs interactionism. Journal of Clinical & Experimental Neuropsychology 1995, 17(2):171-192.
21. Faust M., Bar-lev A., Chiarell C. Sentence priming effects in the two cerebral hemispheres: Influences of lexical relatedness, word order, and sentence anomaly. Neuropsychologia 2003, 41(4):480-492.
22. Faust M., Kravetz S., Babkoff H. Hemisphericity and top-down processing of language. Brain & Language 1993, 44(1):1-18.
23. Federmeier K.D. Thinking ahead: The role and roots of prediction in language comprehension. Psychophysiology 2007, 44:491-505.
24. Federmeier K.D., Kutas M. Right words and left words: Electrophysiological evidence for hemispheric differences in meaning processing. Cognitive Brain Research 1999, 8(3):373-392.
25. Federmeier K.D., Kutas M. A rose by any other name: Long-term memory structure and sentence processing. Journal of Memory & Language 1999, 41(4):469-495.
26. Federmeier K.D., Kutas M. Picture the difference: Electrophysiological investigations of picture processing in the two cerebral hemispheres. Neuropsychologia 2002, 40(7):730-747.
27. Federmeier K.D., McLennan D.B., De Ochoa E., Kutas M. The impact of semantic memory organization and sentence context information on spoken language processing by younger and older adults: An ERP study. Psychophysiology 2002, 39(2):133-146.
28. Gadde, S., & McCarthy, G. (2009). http://www.nbirn.net/tools/bxh_tools/index.shtm.
29. Gagnon L., Goulet P., Giroux F., Joanette Y. Processing of metaphoric and non-metaphoric alternative meanings of words after right- and left-hemispheric lesion. Brain and Language 2003, 87(2):217-226.
30. Giora R. Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics 1997, 8(3):183-206.
31. Giora R. On the priority of salient meanings: Studies of literal and figurative language. Journal of Pragmatics 1999, 31:919-929.
32. Giora R. On our mind: Salience, context, and figurative language, New York 2003, Oxford University Press, New York.
33. Giora R., Zaidel E., Soroker N., Batori G., Kasher A. Differential effects of right- and left-hemisphere damage on understanding sarcasm and metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol 2000, 15(1/2):63-83.
34. Jenkinson M., Bannister P.R., Brady J.M., Smith S.M. Improved optimisation for the robust and accurate linear registration and motion correction of brain images. NeuroImage 2002, 17(2):825-841.
35. Jenkinson M., Smith S.M. A global optimisation method for robust affine registration of brain images. Medical Image Analysis 2001, 5(2):143-156.
36. Joanette Y., Goulet P., Le dorze G. Impaired word naming in right-brain-damaged right-handers: Error types and time-course analyses. Brain and Language 1988, 34:54-64.
37. Jung-Beeman M. Bilateral brain processes for comprehending natural language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2005, 9(11):712-718.
38. Katz A.N., Paivio A., Marschark M. Poetic comparisons: Psychological dimensions of metaphoric processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 1985, 14(4):365-383.
39. Katz A.N., Paivio A., Marschark M., Clark J.M. Norms for 204 literary and 260 nonliterary metaphors on 10 psychological dimensions. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 1988, 3:191-214.
40. Kempler D., Van Lancker D., Marchman V., Bates E. Idiom comprehension in children and adults with unilateral brain damage. Developmental Neuropsychology 1999, 15(3):327-349.
41. Knight R.T. Contribution of human hippocampal region to novelty detection. Nature 1996, 383:256-259.
42. Kucera H., Francis W. Computational analysis of present-day American English 1967, Brown University Press, Providence, R.I.
43. Lancaster J.L., Woldorff M.G., Parsons L.M., Liotti M., Freitas C.S., Rainey L., et al. Automated Talairach Atlas labels for functional brain mapping. Human Brain Mapping 2000, 10:120-131.
44. Lee S.S., Dapretto M. Metaphorical vs. literal word meanings: fMRI evidence against a selective role of the right hemisphere. NeuroImage 2006, 29:536-544.
45. Mashal N., Faust M., Hendler T. The role of the right hemisphere in processing nonsalient metaphorical meanings: Application of Principal Components Analysis to fMRI data. Neuropsychologia 2005, 43(14):2084-2100.
46. Mashal N., Faust M., Hendler T., Jung-Beeman M. An fMRI investigation of the neural correlates underlying the processing of novel metaphoric expressions. Brain and Language 2007, 100:115-126.
47. Mashal N., Faust M., Hendler T., Jung-Beeman M. An fMRI study of processing novel metaphoric sentences. Laterality 2009, 14:30-54.
48. Mason R.A., Just M.A. How the brain processes causal inferences in text. Psychological Science 2004, 15(1):1-7.
49. McIntyre M., Pritchard P.B., Lombroso C.T. Left and right temporal lobe epileptics: A controlled investigation of some psychological differences. Epilepsia 1976, 17:377-386.
50. McRae K., Cree G.S., Seidenberg M.S., McNorgan C. Semantic feature production norms for a large set of living and nonliving things. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 2005, 37(4):547-559.
51. McRae K., Cree G.S., Westmacott R., De Sa V.R. Further evidence for feature correlations in semantic memory. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology 1999, 53(4):360-373.
52. O'Kane G., Insler R.Z., Wagner A.D. Conceptual and perceptual novelty effects in human medial temporal cortex. Hippocampus 2005, 15:326-332.
53. Pobric G., Mashal N., Faust M., Lavidor M. The role of the right cerebral hemisphere in processing novel metaphoric expressions: A transcranial magnetic stimulation study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2008, 20:170-181.
54. Rapp A.M., Leube D.T., Erb M., Grodd W., Kircher T.T. Neural correlates of metaphor processing. Cognitive Brain Research 2004, 20(3):395-402.
55. Rapp A.M., Leube D.T., Erb M., Grodd W., Kircher T.T. Laterality in metaphor processing: Lack of evidence from functional magnetic resonance imaging for the right hemisphere theory. Brain and Language 2007, 100(2):142-149.
56. Rinaldi M.C., Marangolo P., Baldassarri F. Metaphor comprehension in right brain-damaged patients with visuo-verbal and verbal material: A dissociation (re)considered. Cortex 2004, 40(3):479-490.
57. Schmidt G.L., Seger C.A. Neural correlates of metaphor processing: The roles of figurativeness, familiarity and difficulty. Brain & Cognition 2009, 71(3):375-386.
58. Seger C.A., Desmond J.E., Glover G.H., Gabrieli J.D. Functional magnetic resonance imaging evidence for right-hemisphere involvement in processing unusual semantic relationships. Neuropsychology 2000, 14(3):361-369.
59. Smith S.M. Fast robust automated brain extraction. Human Brain Mapping 2002, 3:143-155.
60. Smith S.M., Jenkinson M., Woolrich M.W., Beckman C.F., Behrens T.E.J., Johansen-Berg H., et al. Advances in functional and structural MR image analysis and implementation as FSL. NeuroImage 2004, 23:208-219.
61. Sotillo M., Carreti L., Hinojosa J.A., Tapia M., Mercado F., Lopez-Martin S., et al. Neural activity associated with metaphor comprehension: Spatial analysis. Neuroscience Letters 2005, 373:5-9.
62. St George M., Kutas M., Martinez A., Sereno M.I. Semantic integration in reading: Engagement of the right hemisphere during discourse processing. Brain 1999, 122:1317-1325.
63. Stringaris A.K., Medford N., Giora R., Giampietro C.V., Brammer J.M., David S.A. How metaphors influence semantic relatedness judgments: The role of the right frontal cortex. NeuroImage 2006, 33:784-793.
64. Stringaris A.K., Medford N.C., Giampietro V., Brammer M.J., David A.S. Deriving meaning: Distinct neural mechanisms for metaphoric, literal, and non-meaningful sentences. Brain and Language 2007, 100:150-162.
65. Talairach J., Tournoux P. Co-planar stereotaxic atlas of the human brain 1988, Thieme, New York.
66. Tompkins C.A. Knowledge and strategies for processing lexical metaphor after right or left hemisphere brain damage. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 1990, 33:307-316.
67. Tompkins C.A., Baumgaertner A., Lehman M.T., Fossett T.R.D. Suppression and discourse comprehension in right brain-damaged adults: A preliminary report. Aphasiology 1997, 11(4-5):505-519.
68. Tucker D.M., Watson R.T., Heilman K.M. Discrimination and evocation of affectively intoned speech in patients with right parietal disease. Neurology 1977, 27(10):947-950.
69. Tulving E., Markowitsch H.J., Craik F.E., Habib R., Houle S. Novelty and familiarity activations in PET studies of memory encoding and retrieval. Cerebral Cortex 1996, 6(1):71-79.
70. Van Lancker D., Kempler D. Comprehension of familiar phrases by left- but not by right-hemisphere damaged patients. Brain and Language 1987, 32:265-277.
71. Voyvodic J.T. Real-time fMRI integrating paradigm control, physiology, behavior and on-line statistical analysis. Neuroimage 1999, 10:91-106.
72. Wilson M.D. The MRC psycholinguistic database: machine readable dictionary, Version 2. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers 1988, 20:6-10.
73. Winner E., Gardner H. The comprehension of metaphor in brain-damaged patients. Brain 1977, 100(4):717-729.
74. Woolrich M.W., Behrens T.E.J., Beckman C.F., Jenkinson M., Smith S.M. Multi-level linear modelling for FMRI group analysis using Bayesian inference. Neuroimage 2004, 21(4):1732-1747.
75. Woolrich M.W., Jbabdi S., Patenaude B., Chappell M., Makni S., Behrens T.E.J., et al. Bayesian analysis of neuroimaging data in FSL. Neuroimage 2009, 45:S173-186.
76. Woolrich M.W., Ripley B.D., Brady J.M., Smith S.M. Temporal autocorrelation in univariate linear modelling of FMRI data. Neuroimage 2001, 6:1370-1386.
77. Yang F.G., Edens J., Simpson C., Krawczyk D.C. Differences in task demands influence the hemispheric lateralization and neural correlates of metaphor. Brain & Language 2009, 111:114-124.