Hemispheric asymmetry in interpreting novel literal language: An event-related potential study

Neuropsychologia

Volumn 51, Issue 5, 2013, Pages 907-921

  Davenport, Tristan ^a,b   Coulson, Seana ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Event related potentials; Hemispheric specialization; Language; Late positivity; N400; Semantics

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BRAIN ASYMMETRY; BRAIN MAPPING; COMPREHENSION; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAM; EVENT RELATED POTENTIAL; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LANGUAGE PROCESSING; LATENT PERIOD; LEFT HEMISPHERE; MALE; MENTAL TASK; NORMAL HUMAN; PREDICTION; READING; RIGHT HEMISPHERE; SEMANTIC MEMORY; TASK PERFORMANCE; VISUAL FIELD; VISUAL STIMULATION; WORD RECOGNITION;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; BRAIN MAPPING; COMPREHENSION; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY; EVOKED POTENTIALS; FEMALE; FUNCTIONAL LATERALITY; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; MALE; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; TIME FACTORS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84875292643     PISSN: 00283932     EISSN: 18733514     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.01.018     Document Type: Article

References (82)

1. Ahrens K., Liu H., Lee C., Gong S., Fang S., Hsu Y. Functional MRI of conventional and anomalous metaphors in Mandarin Chinese. Brain and Language 2007, 100:163-171.
2. Anaki D., Faust M., Kravets S. Cerebral hemispheric asymmetries in processing lexical metaphors. Neuropsychologia 1998, 36:353-362.
3. Badre D., Wagner A. Left ventrolateral prefrontal cortex and the cognitive control of memory. Neuropsychologia 2007, 45(13):2883-2901.
4. Banich M. The divided visual field technique in laterality and interhemispheric integration. Experimental Methods in Neuropsychology 2002, 21:47-63.
5. Beeman M., Friedman R., Grafman J., Perez E., Diamond S., et al. Summation priming and coarse semantic coding in the right hemisphere. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 1994, 6(1):26-45.
6. Beeman M., Bowden E., Gernsbacher M. Right and Left Hemisphere Cooperation for drawing predictive and coherence inferences during normal story comprehension. Brain and Language 2000, 71:310-336.
7. Bottini, G., Corcoran, R., Sterzi, R., Paulesu, E., Schenone, P., et al. The role of the right hemisphere in the interpretation of figurative aspects of language: A positron emission tomography activation study. Brain, 117, 1241-1253.
8. Bradshaw G., Nettleton N. Human cerebral asymmetry 1983, Prentice-Hall, Eaglewood Cliffs, NJ.
9. Brownell H., Michel D., Powelson J., Gardner H. Surprise but not coherence: Sensitivity to verbal humor in right-hemisphere patients. Brain and Language 1983, 18:20-27.
10. Brownell H., Potter H., Bihrle A., Gardner H. Inference deficits in right brain-damaged patients. Brain and Language 1986, 27:310-321.
11. Brownell H., Carroll J., Rehak A., Wingfield A. The use of pronoun anaphora and speaker mood in the interpretation of conversational utterances by right hemisphere brain-damaged patients. Brain and Language 1992, 43:121-147.
12. Chiarello C., Beeman M. Introduction to the cognitive neuroscience of right hemisphere language comprehension. Right hemisphere language comprehension: perspectives from cognitive neuroscience 1998, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ. M. Beeman, C. Chiarello (Eds.).
13. Christoff K. Human thought and the lateral prefrontal cortex. Neural correlates of thinking 2009, vol 1:219-252. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin.
14. Christoff K., Prabhakaran V., Dorfman J., Zhao Z., Kroger J.K., et al. Rostrolateral prefrontal cortex involvement in relational integration during reasoning. NeuroImage 2001, 14:1136-1149.
15. Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.
16. Coulson S., Matlock T. Metaphor and the space structuring model. Metaphor and Symbol 2001, 16(3&4):295-316.
17. Coulson S., Van Petten C. Conceptual integration and metaphor: An event-related potential study. Memory and Cognition 2002, 30(6):958-968.
18. Coulson S., Federmeier K., Van Petten C., Kutas M. Right hemisphere sensitivity to word- and sentence-level context: Evidence drom event-related brain potentials. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 2005, 31(1):129-147.
19. Coulson S., Wu Y. Right hemisphere activation of joke-related information: An event-related potential study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2005, 17(3):494-506.
20. Coulson S., Williams R. Hemispheric asymmetries and joke comprehension. Neuropsychologia 2005, 43:128-141.
21. Coulson S. Constructing meaning. Metaphor and Symbol 2006, 21(4):245-266.
22. Coulson S., Severens E. Hemispheric asymmetry and pun comprehension: when cowboys have sore calves. Brain and Language 2007, 100:172-187.
23. 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.
24. Coulson S., Davenport T. The cognitive neuroscience of creative language: The prosaic and the poetic. Advances in the neural substrate of language: Toward a synthesis of basic science and clinical research 2011, Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken, NJ. M. Faust (Ed.).
25. Davenport T., Coulson S. Predictability and novelty in literal language comprehension: An ERP study. Brain Research 2011, 1418:70-82.
26. DeLong K., Urbach T., Kutas M. Probabilistic word pre-activation during language comprehension inferred from electrical brain activity. Nature Neuroscience 2005, 8(8):1117-1121.
27. DeLong K., Urbach T., Groppe D., Kutas M. Overlapping dual ERP responses to low cloze probability sentence continuations. Psychophysiology 2011, 48(9):1203-1207.
28. Fauconnier G. Mappings in thought and language 1997, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
29. Fauconnier G., Turner M. The way we think 2002, Basic Books, New York.
30. Faust M., Weisper S. Understanding metaphoric sentences in the two cerebral hemispheres. Brain and Cognition 2000, 43(1-3):186-191.
31. Faust M., Mashal N. The role of the right cerebral hemisphere in processing novel metaphoric expressions taken from poetry: A divided visual field study. Neuropsychologia 2007, 45:860-870.
32. Federmeier K., Kutas M. Right words and left words: electrophysiological evidence for hemispheric differences in meaning processing. Cognitive Brain Research 1999, 8:373-392.
33. Federmeier K. Thinking ahead: The role and roots of prediction in language comprehension. Psychophysiology 2007, 44:491-505.
34. Federmeier K., Wlotko E., De Ochoa-Dewald E., Kutas M. Multiple effects of sentential constraint on word processing. Brain Research 2007, 1146:75-84.
35. Federmeier K., Wlotko E., Meyer A. What's 'Right' in language comprehension: Event-related potentials reveal right hemisphere language capabilities. Language and Linguistics Compass 2008, 2(1):1-17.
36. Folstein J., Van Petten C. After the P3: Late executive processes in stimulus categorization. Psychophysiology 2011, 48:825-841.
37. Giora R. Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics 1997, 7:183-206.
38. 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, 15:63-83.
39. Giora R. Is metaphor special?. Brain and Language 2007, 100:111-114.
40. Gold B., Balota D., Jones S., Powell D., Smith C., Andersen A. Dissociation of automatic and strategic lexical-semantics: Functionalmagnetic resonance imaging evidence for differing roles of multiple frontotemporal regions. Journal of Neuroscience 2006, 26(24):6523-6532.
41. Greenhouse S., Geisser S. On methods in the analysis of profile data. Psychometrika 1959, 24(2):95-112.
42. Hillyard S., Anllo-Vento L. Event-related brain potentials in the study of visual selective attention. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 1998, 95(3):781-787.
43. Jung-Beeman M. Bilateral brain processes for comprehending natural language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2005, 9(11):512-518.
44. Kacinik, N. (2003). Hemispheric processing of literal and metaphoric language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of California, Riverside.
45. Kacinik N., Chiarello C. Understanding metaphors: Is the right hemisphere uniquely involved?. Brain and Language 2007, 188-207.
46. Kandhadai P., Federmeier K. Summing it up: Semantic activation processes in the two hemispheres as revealed by event-related potentials. Brain Research 2008, 1233:146-159.
47. Kaplan J., Brownell H., Jacobs J., Gardner H. The effects of right hemisphere damage on the pragmatic interpretation of conversational remarks. Brain and Language 1990, 315-333.
48. Kroger J.K., Sabb F.W., Fales C.L., Bookheimer S.Y., Cohen M.S., Holyoak K.J. Recruitment of anterior dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in human reasoning: A parametric study of relational complexity. Cerebral Cortex 2002, 12:477-485.
49. Kuo T.Y., Van Petten C. Prefrontal engagement during source memory retrieval depends on the prior encoding task. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2006, 18:1133-1146.
50. Kuperberg G., Sitnikova T., Caplan D., Holcomb P. Electrophysiological distinctions in processing conceptual relationships within simple sentences. Cognitive Brain Research 2003, 17:117-129.
51. Kutas M., Hillyard S. Reading senseless sentences: brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science 1980, 207:203-205.
52. Kutas M., Hillyard S. Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association. Nature 1984, 307:161-163.
53. Kutas M., Lindamood T., Hillyard S. Word expectancy and event-related potentials during sentence processing. Preparatory states and processes 1984, 217-238. Erlbaum Press, New Jersey. S. Kornblum, J. Requin (Eds.).
54. Kutas M., Federmeier K. Thirty years and counting: Finding meaning in the N400 component of the event-related brain potential (ERP). Annual Review of Psychology 2011, 62:621-647.
55. Lakoff.G., Johnson M. Metaphors we live by 1980, Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago.
56. Lau E.F., Phillips C., Poeppel D. A cortical network for semantics:(de) constructing the N400. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2008, 9(12):920-933.
57. Lee S., Dapretto M. Metaphorical vs. literal word meanings: fMRI evidence against a selective role of the right hemisphere. NeuroImage 2006, 29:536-544.
58. Maia T. Reinforcement learning, conditioning, and the brain: Successes and challenges. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience 2009, 9(4):343-364.
59. Roca M., Parr A., Thompson R., Woolgar A., Torralva T., et al. Executive function and fluid intelligence after frontal lobe lesions. Brain 2010, 133(1):234-247.
60. Mashal N., Faust M. Right hemisphere sensitivity to novel metaphoric relations: Application of the signal detection theory. Brain and Language 2008, 104:103-112.
61. Mashal N., Faust M., Hendler T., Jung-Beeman M. An fMRI study of processing novel metaphoric sentences. Laterality 2009, 14(1):30-54.
62. Pinker S. The stuff of thought: Language as a window into human nature 2007, Viking Press, New York, NY.
63. 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(1):170-181.
64. Polich J. Updating P300: An integrative theory of P3a and P3b. Clinical Neurophysiology 2007, 118:2128-2148.
65. Ranganath C., Paller K. Neural correlates of memory retrieval and evaluation. Cognitive Brain Research 2000, 9:209-222.
66. Rapp A., Leube D., Erb M., Grodd W., Kircher T. Neural correlates of metaphor processing. Cognitive Brain Research 2004, 20:395-402.
67. Rapp A., Leube D., Erb M., Grodd W., Kircher T. Laterality in metaphor processing: Lack of evidence from functional magnetic resonance imaging for the right hemisphere theory. Brain and Language 2007, 100:142-149.
68. Rugg M., Yonelinas A. Human recognition memory: a cognitive neuroscience perspective. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2003, 7(7):313-319.
69. Stemmer B., Giroux F., Joanette Y. Production and evaluation of requests by right hemisphere brain-damaged individuals. Brain and Language 1994, 47:1-31.
70. St.George M., Kutas M., Martinez A., Sereno M. Semantic integration in reading: Engagement of the right hemisphere during discourse processing. Brain 1999, 122(7):1317-1325.
71. Sutton R., Barto A. Reinforcement learning: An introduction. Cambridge, MA 1998, MIT Press.
72. Swick D., Kutas M., Knight R.T. Prefrontal lesions eliminate LPC but do not affect the N400 during sentence reading. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 1998, 5(Supplement):29.
73. Thornhill D., Van Petten C. Lexical versus conceptual anticipation during sentence processing: Frontal positivity and N400 ERP components. International Journal of Psychophysiology 2012, 83(3):382-392.
74. Tompkins C., Scharp V., Fassbinder W., Meigh K., Armstrong E. A different story on "theory of mind" deficit in adults with right hemisphere brain damage. Aphasiology 2008, 22(1):42-61.
75. Van Petten C., Luka B. Neural localization of semantic context effects in electromagnetic and hemodynamic studies. Brain and Language 2006, 97:279-293.
76. Van Petten C., Luka B. Prediction during language comprehension: Benefits, costs, and ERP components. International Journal of Psychophysiology 2012, 83(2):176-190.
77. Virtue S., Haberman J., Clancy Z., Parrish T., Jung-Beeman M. Neural activity of inferences during story comprehension. Brain Research 2006, 1084:104-114.
78. Virtue S., Van den Broek P., Linderholm T. Hemispheric processing of inferences: The effects of textual constraint and working memory capacity. Memory and Cognition 2006, 34(6):1341-1354.
79. Virtue S., Parrish T., Jung-Beeman M. Inferences during story comprehension: Cortical recruitment affected by predictability of events and working memory capacity. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2008, 20(12):2274-2284.
80. Winner E., Gardner H. The comprehension of metaphor in brain-damaged patients. Brain 1977, 100:717-729.
81. Wlotko E., Federmeier K., Kutas M. To predict or not to predict: age-related differences in the use of sentential context. Psychology and Aging 2012, 27(4):975-988.
82. Xu J., Kemeny S., Park G., Frattali C., Braun A. Language in context: emergent features of word, sentence, and narrative comprehension. NeuroImage 2005, 25:1002-1015.