Differential bilateral involvement of the parietal gyrus during predicative metaphor processing: An auditory fMRI study

Brain and Language

Volumn 137, Issue , 2014, Pages 112-119

  Obert, Alexandre ^a   Gierski, Fabien ^a,b   Calmus, Arnaud ^a,c   Portefaix, Christophe ^d,e   Declercq, Christelle ^a   Pierot, Laurent ^d   Caillies, Stéphanie ^a  

^a University of Reims Champagne Ardenne   (France)

^b SERVICE DE DERMATOLOGIE   (France)

^c REIMS UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (France)

^d HÔPITAL MAISON BLANCHE   (France)

^e UNIVERSITÉ DE REIMS CHAMPAGNE ARDENNE   (France)

Author keywords

Context embedded; FMRI; Predicative metaphors; Semantics

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BEHAVIOR; COGNITION; COMPREHENSION; CONTROLLED STUDY; EVOKED AUDITORY RESPONSE; FEMALE; FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE PROCESSING; FUNCTIONAL MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; IMAGERY; INFERIOR PARIETAL LOBULE; LANGUAGE PROCESSING; LINGUISTICS; LITERATURE; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; PARIETAL GYRUS; PRECUNEUS; SEMANTICS; VERBAL BEHAVIOR; VISUAL FIELD; WORKING MEMORY; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; CLINICAL TRIAL; HEMISPHERIC DOMINANCE; IMAGE PROCESSING; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PARIETAL LOBE; PHYSIOLOGY; REFERENCE VALUE; SHORT TERM MEMORY; STATISTICS; YOUNG ADULT;

ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; COMPREHENSION; FEMALE; FUNCTIONAL LATERALITY; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MEMORY, SHORT-TERM; METAPHOR; PARIETAL LOBE; REFERENCE VALUES; SEMANTICS; STATISTICS AS TOPIC; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84908664027     PISSN: 0093934X     EISSN: 10902155     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.bandl.2014.08.002     Document Type: Article

References (67)

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. Amanzio M., Geminiani G., Leotta D., Cappa S. Metaphor comprehension in Alzheimer's disease: Novelty matters. Brain and Language 2008, 107(1):1-10.
3. Bambini V., Gentili C., Ricciardi E., Bertinetto P.M., Pietrini P. Decomposing metaphor processing at the cognitive and neural level through functional magnetic resonance imaging. Brain Research Bulletin 2011, 86(3-4):203-216.
4. Beaty R.E., Silvia P.J. Metaphorically speaking: Cognitive abilities and the production of figurative language. Memory & cognition 2013, 41(2):255-267.
5. Benedek M., Beaty R., Jauk E., Koschutnig K., Fink A., Silvia P.J., et al. Creating metaphors: The neural basis of figurative language production. Neuroimage 2013, 90C:99-106.
6. Binder J.R., Desai R.H. The neurobiology of semantic memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2011, 15(11):527-536.
7. Binder J.R., Desai R.H., Graves W.W., Conant L.L. Where is the semantic system? A critical review and meta-analysis of 120 functional neuroimaging studies. Cerebral Cortex 2009, 19(12):2767-2796.
8. Bohrn I.C., Altmann U., Jacobs A.M. Looking at the brains behind figurative language - A quantitative meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies on metaphor, idiom, and irony processing. Neuropsychologia 2012, 50(11):2669-2683.
9. Caillies S., Declercq C. Kill the song-steal the show: What does distinguish predicative metaphors from decomposable idioms?. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 2011, 40(3):205-223.
10. Chen E., Widick P., Chatterjee A. Functional-anatomical organization of predicate metaphor processing. Brain and Language 2008, 107(3):194-202.
11. Desai R.H., Binder J.R., Conant L.L., Mano Q.R., Seidenberg M.S. The neural career of sensory-motor metaphors. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2011, 23(9):2376-2386.
12. Diaz M.T., Barrett K.T., Hogstrom L.J. The influence of sentence novelty and figurativeness on brain activity. Neuropsychologia 2011, 49(3):320-330.
13. Diaz M.T., Hogstrom L.J. The influence of context on hemispheric recruitment during metaphor processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2011, 23(11):3586-3597.
14. Faust M., Chiarello C. Sentence context and lexical ambiguity resolution by the two hemispheres. Neuropsychologia 1998, 36(9):827-835.
15. Faust M.E., Gernsbacher M.A. Cerebral mechanisms for suppression of inappropriate information during sentence comprehension. Brain and Language 1996, 53(2):234-259.
16. Faust M., Kahana A. Priming summation in the cerebral hemispheres: Evidence from semantically convergent and semantically divergent primes. Neuropsychologia 2002, 40(7):892-901.
17. Faust M., Lavidor M. Semantically convergent and semantically divergent priming in the cerebral hemispheres: Lexical decision and semantic judgment. Brain Research. Cognitive Brain Research 2003, 17(3):585-597.
18. 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(4):860-870.
19. Franquart-Declercq, C. (2003, 3-5 Septembre). Processing of verbal metaphors, semantic representations of verbs and fuzzy-borders, Paris.
20. Ghio, A., Teston, B., Frenck-Mestre, C., Astésano, C., Schön, D., Nazarian, B., et al. (2004). Perception de la parole et IRM: réalisation, évaluation et validation d'un système permettant une stimulation sonore de qualité en cours de séquence IRM.
21. Gibbs R.W. A new look at literal meaning in understanding what is said and implicated. Journal of Pragmatics 2002, 34(4):457-486.
22. Giora R. Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive linguistics 1997, 8:183-206.
23. Giora R., Zaidel E., Soroker N., Batori G., Kasher A. Differential effect of right- and left-hemisphere damage on understanding sarcasm and metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol 2000, 15(1-2):63-83.
24. Gold R., Faust M., Goldstein A. Semantic integration during metaphor comprehension in Asperger syndrome. Brain and Language 2010, 113(3):124-134.
25. Graves W.W., Binder J.R., Desai R.H., Conant L.L., Seidenberg M.S. Neural correlates of implicit and explicit combinatorial semantic processing. Neuroimage 2010, 53(2):638-646.
26. Humphries C., Binder J.R., Medler D.A., Liebenthal E. Time course of semantic processes during sentence comprehension: An fMRI study. Neuroimage 2007, 36(3):924-932.
27. Jung-Beeman M. Bilateral brain processes for comprehending natural language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2005, 9(11):512-518.
28. Kacinik N.A., Chiarello C. Understanding metaphors: Is the right hemisphere uniquely involved?. Brain and Language 2007, 100(2):188-207.
29. Lai V.T., Curran T., Menn L. Comprehending conventional and novel metaphors: An ERP study. Brain Research 2009, 1284:145-155.
30. Lakoff G., Johnson M. Conceptual metaphor in everyday language. The Journal of Philosophy 1980, 77(8):453.
31. Landauer T.K., Dumais S.T. A solution to Plato's problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review 1997, 104(2):211-240.
32. Le Ny J.-F., Franquart-Declercq C. Flexibilité des significations, traits sémantiques et compréhension des métaphores verbales. Verbum 2001, 23:385-400.
33. Le Ny J.-F., Franquart-Declercq C. Signification des verbes, relations verbe/patient et congruence sémantique. Le Langage et l'Homme 2002, 37:9-26.
34. Lee S.S., Dapretto M. Metaphorical vs. literal word meanings: fMRI evidence against a selective role of the right hemisphere. Neuroimage 2006, 29(2):536-544.
35. Li F., Guo X., Zhu L., Yang Z., Dienes Z. Implicit learning of mappings between forms and metaphorical meanings. Consciousness and Cognition 2013, 22(1):174-183.
36. Martín-Loeches M., Casado P., Hernández-Tamames J.A., Álvarez-Linera J. Brain activation in discourse comprehension: A 3t fMRI study. Neuroimage 2008, 41(2):614-622.
37. Mashal N., Faust M. Right hemisphere sensitivity to novel metaphoric relations: Application of the signal detection theory. Brain and Language 2008, 104(2):103-112.
38. Mashal N., Faust M. Conventionalisation of novel metaphors: A shift in hemispheric asymmetry. Laterality 2009, 14(6):573-589.
39. Mashal N., Faust M. The effects of metaphoricity and presentation style on brain activation during text comprehension. Metaphor and Symbol 2010, 25(1):19-33.
40. 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.
41. 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(2):115-126.
42. Mashal N., Faust M., Hendler T., Jung-Beeman M. An fMRI study of processing novel metaphoric sentences. Laterality 2009, 14(1):30-54.
43. Morrone I., Declercq C., Novella J.L., Besche C. Aging and inhibition processes: The case of metaphor treatment. Psychology and Aging 2010, 25(3):697-701.
44. New B., Pallier C., Ferrand L., Matos R. Une base de données lexicales du français contemporain sur internet: LEXIQUE™//A lexical database for contemporary french: LEXIQUE™. L'année psychologique 2001, 101(3):447-462.
45. Oldfield R.C. The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia 1971, 9(1):97-113.
46. Prat C.S., Mason R.A., Just M.A. An fMRI investigation of analogical mapping in metaphor comprehension: The influence of context and individual cognitive capacities on processing demands. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2012, 38(2):282-294.
47. Rapp A.M., Leube D.T., Erb M., Grodd W., Kircher T.T. Neural correlates of metaphor processing. Brain Research. Cognitive Brain Research 2004, 20(3):395-402.
48. 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.
49. Rapp A.M., Mutschler D.E., Erb M. Where in the brain is nonliteral language? A coordinate-based meta-analysis of functional magnetic resonance imaging studies. Neuroimage 2012, 63(1):600-610.
50. 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.
51. Romero Lauro L.J., Mattavelli G., Papagno C., Tettamanti M. She runs, the road runs, my mind runs, bad blood runs between us: Literal and figurative motion verbs: An fMRI study. Neuroimage 2013, 83:361-371.
52. Rutter B., Kroger S., Stark R., Schweckendiek J., Windmann S., Hermann C., et al. Can clouds dance? Neural correlates of passive conceptual expansion using a metaphor processing task: Implications for creative cognition. Brain and Cognition 2012, 78(2):114-122.
53. Schmidt G.L., Seger C.A. Neural correlates of metaphor processing: The roles of figurativeness, familiarity and difficulty. Brain and Cognition 2009, 71(3):375-386.
54. Shibata M., Abe J., Terao A., Miyamoto T. Neural mechanisms involved in the comprehension of metaphoric and literal sentences: An fMRI study. Brain Research 2007, 1166:92-102.
55. Shibata M., Toyomura A., Motoyama H., Itoh H., Kawabata Y., Abe J. Does simile comprehension differ from metaphor comprehension? A functional MRI study. Brain and Language 2012, 121(3):254-260.
56. Silvia P.J., Beaty R.E. Making creative metaphors: The importance of fluid intelligence for creative thought. Intelligence 2012, 40(4):343-351.
57. Silvia P.J., Beaty R.E., Nusbaum E.C. Verbal fluency and creativity: General and specific contributions of broad retrieval ability (Gr) factors to divergent thinking. Intelligence 2013, 41(5):328-340.
58. 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(2):150-162.
59. Stringaris A.K., Medford N., Giora R., Giampietro V.C., Brammer M.J., David A.S. How metaphors influence semantic relatedness judgments: The role of the right frontal cortex. Neuroimage 2006, 33(2):784-793.
60. Subramaniam K., Faust M., Beeman M., Mashal N. The repetition paradigm: Enhancement of novel metaphors and suppression of conventional metaphors in the left inferior parietal lobe. Neuropsychologia 2012, 50(12):2705-2719.
61. Tompkins C.A., Bloise C.G., Timko M.L., Baumgaertner A. Working memory and inference revision in brain-damaged and normally aging adults. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 1994, 37:896-912.
62. Van Lancker D.R., Kempler D. Comprehension of familiar phrases by left- but not by right-hemisphere damaged patients. Brain and Language 1987, 32(2):265-277.
63. Vigneau M., Beaucousin V., Herve P.Y., Duffau H., Crivello F., Houde O., et al. Meta-analyzing left hemisphere language areas: Phonology, semantics, and sentence processing. Neuroimage 2006, 30(4):1414-1432.
64. Wechsler D. Manuel de l'Echelle d'Intelligence de Wechsler PourAdultes-3e édition [Manual for the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Third edition] 2000, ECPA, Paris, France.
65. Winner E., Gardner H. The comprehension of metaphor in brain-damaged patients. Brain 1977, 100(4):717-729.
66. Yang F.G., Edens J., Simpson C., Krawczyk D.C. Differences in task demands influence the hemispheric lateralization and neural correlates of metaphor. Brain and Language 2009, 111(2):114-124.
67. Zaidel E., Kasher A., Soroker N., Batori G. Effects of right and left hemisphere damage on performance of the "Right Hemisphere Communication Battery". Brain and Language 2002, 80(3):510-535.