4.7 Article

Concepts Are More than Percepts: The Case of Action Verbs

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
卷 28, 期 44, 页码 11347-11353

出版社

SOC NEUROSCIENCE
DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3039-08.2008

关键词

language; sensory-motor; temporal; concept; memory; visual motion

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01 MH067008, R01 DC006842, K24 RR018875, R01 EY12091, R21 EY0116168]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Several regions of the posterior-lateral-temporal cortex (PLTC) are reliably recruited when participants read or listen to action verbs, relative to other word and nonword types. This PLTC activation is generally interpreted as reflecting the retrieval of visual-motion features of actions. This interpretation supports the broader theory, that concepts are comprised of sensory-motor features. We investigated an alternative interpretation of the same activations: PLTC activity for action verbs reflects the retrieval of modality-independent representations of event concepts, or the grammatical types associated with them, i.e., verbs. During a functional magnetic resonance imaging scan, participants made semantic-relatedness judgments on word pairs varying in amount of visual-motion information. Replicating previous results, several PLTC regions showed higher responses to words that describe actions versus objects. However, we found that these PLTC regions did not overlap with visual-motion regions. Moreover, their response was higher for verbs than nouns, regardless of visual-motion features. For example, the response of the PLTC is equally high to action verbs (e. g., to run) and mental verbs (e. g., to think), and equally low to animal nouns (e. g., the cat) and inanimate natural kind nouns (e. g., the rock). Thus, PLTC activity for action verbs might reflect the retrieval of event concepts, or the grammatical information associated with verbs. We conclude that concepts are abstracted away from sensory-motor experience and organized according to conceptual properties.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据