Simultaneously uncovering the patterns of brain regions involved in different story reading Subprocesses

PLoS ONE

Volumn 9, Issue 11, 2014, Pages

  Wehbe, Leila ^a,b   Murphy, Brian ^c   Talukdar, Partha ^d   Fyshe, Alona ^a,b   Ramdas, Aaditya ^a   Mitchell, Tom ^a,b  

^a Machine Learning Department Carnegie Mellon University ^*  (United States)

^b CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY BELFAST   (United Kingdom)

^d INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE   (India)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ANGULAR GYRUS; ARTICLE; BRAIN REGION; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; FUNCTIONAL MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; FUSIFORM GYRUS; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INFERIOR FRONTAL GYRUS; INFERIOR TEMPORAL GYRUS; LANGUAGE PROCESSING; MALE; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; MEASUREMENT ACCURACY; MIDDLE TEMPORAL GYRUS; NORMAL HUMAN; OCCIPITAL LOBE; PARS OPERCULARIS; PARS TRIANGULARIS; PRECUNEUS; PREDICTION; PRIMARY MOTOR CORTEX; READING; SUPERIOR TEMPORAL GYRUS; SUPPLEMENTARY MOTOR AREA; ADOLESCENT; ANATOMY AND HISTOLOGY; ATTENTION; BRAIN; BRAIN MAPPING; COMPREHENSION; IMAGE PROCESSING; LANGUAGE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PHYSIOLOGY; RECALL;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ATTENTION; BRAIN; BRAIN MAPPING; COMPREHENSION; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; LANGUAGE; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MENTAL RECALL; READING;

EID: 84913580275     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0112575     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Manning CD, Schutze H. Foundations of statistical natural language processing, volume 999. MIT Press. 1999.
2. Mason R, Just M. Neuroimaging contributions to the understanding of discourse processes. Handbook of psycholinguistics. 2006 799.
3. Currie G. The Nature of Fiction. Cambridge University Press. 1990.
4. Salmelin R. Clinical neurophysiology of language: the MEG approach. Clinical Neurophysiology. 2007;118:237-254.
5. Constable R, Pugh K, Berroya E, Mencl W, Westerveld M, et al. Sentence complexity and input modality effects in sentence comprehension: An fMRI study. Neuroimage. 2004;22:11-21.
6. Kuperberg G. Neural mechanisms of language comprehension: Challenges to syntax. Brain Research. 2007;1146:23-49.
7. Fedorenko E, Hsieh PJ, Nieto-Castanon A, Whitfield-Gabrieli S, Kanwisher N. New method for fMRI investigations of language: Defining ROIs functionally in individual subjects. Journal of Neurophysiology. 2010;104:1177-1194.
8. Fedorenko E, Nieto-Castanon A, Kanwisher N. Lexical and syntactic representations in the brain: An fMRI investigation with multi-voxel pattern analyses. Neuropsychologia. 2012;50:499-513.
9. Dapretto M, Bookheimer S. Form and content: Dissociating syntax and semantics in sentence comprehension. Neuron. 1999;24:427-432.
10. Friederici AD. Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing. Trends in cognitive sciences. 2002;6:78-84.
11. Hagoort P. How the brain solves the binding problem for language: A neurocomputational model of syntactic processing. Neuroimage. 2003;20:S18-S29.
12. Rowling J. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. Harry Potter US. Pottermore Limited. 2012.
13. Aguirre G, Zarahn E, D'esposito M. The variability of human, BOLD hemodynamic responses. Neuroimage. 1998;8:360-369.
14. Hasson U, Honey CJ. Future trends in Neuroimaging: Neural processes as expressed within real-life contexts. NeuroImage. 2012;62:1272-1278.
15. Mitchell T, Shinkareva S, Carlson A, Chang K, Malave V, et al. Predicting human brain activity associated with the meanings of nouns. Science. 2008;320:1191-1195.
16. Huth AG, Nishimoto S, Vu AT, Gallant JL. A continuous semantic space describes the representation of thousands of object and action categories across the human brain. Neuron. 2012;76:1210-1224.
17. Murphy B, Talukdar P, Mitchell T. Learning effective and interpretable semantic models using Non-Negative Sparse Embedding. In: International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING 2012), Mumbai, India. 2012.
18. Kriegeskorte N, Goebel R, Bandettini P. Information-based functional brain mapping. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2006;103:3863-3868.
19. Cohen L, Dehaene S. Specialization within the ventral stream: the case for the visual word form area. Neuroimage. 2004;22:466-476.
20. Pallier C, Devauchelle A, Dehaene S. Cortical representation of the constituent structure of sentences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2011;108:2522-2527.
21. Ravizza SM, Behrmann M, Fiez JA. Right parietal contributions to verbal working memory: spatial or executive? Neuropsychologia. 2005;43:2057-2067.
22. Meyler A, Keller TA, Cherkassky VL, Lee D, Hoeft F, et al. Brain activation during sentence comprehension among good and poor readers. Cerebral Cortex. 2007;17:2780-2787.
23. Hagoort P, Baggio G, Willems RM. Semantic unification. The cognitive neurosciences. 2009;4:819-836.
24. Grossman E, Blake R. Brain activity evoked by inverted and imagined biological motion. Vision research. 2001;41:1475-1482.
25. Saxe R. Uniquely human social cognition. Current opinion in neurobiology. 2006;16:235-239.
26. Gobbini MI, Haxby JV. Neural systems for recognition of familiar faces. Neuropsychologia. 2007;45:32-41.
27. Murphy B, Poesio M, Bovolo F, Bruzzone L, Dalponte M, et al. EEG decoding of semantic category reveals distributed representations for single concepts. Brain and language. 2011;117:12-22.
28. Nestor A, Vettel JM, Tarr MJ. Internal representations for face detection: An application of noise-based image classification to BOLD responses. Human brain mapping. 2013;34:3101-3115.
29. Honey CJ, Thesen T, Donner TH, Silbert LJ, Carlson CE, et al. Slow cortical dynamics and the accumulation of information over long timescales. Neuron. 2012;76:423-434.