4.0 Article

fMRI evidence for word association and situated simulation in conceptual processing

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSIOLOGY-PARIS
卷 102, 期 1-3, 页码 106-119

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jphysparis.2008.03.014

关键词

Language and Situated Simulation (LASS); conceptual processing; word recognition; language; action

资金

  1. NIMH NIH HHS [1F31MH070152-01] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH [F31MH070152] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The LASS theory proposes that Language and Situated Simulation both play central roles in conceptual processing. Depending on stimuli and task conditions, different mixtures of language and simulation occur. When a word is processed in a conceptual task, it first activates other linguistic forms, such as word associates. More slowly, the word activates a situated simulation to represent its meaning in neural systems for perception, action, and mental states. An fMRI experiment tested the LASS account. In a first scanning session, participants performed the property generation task to provide a measure of conceptual processing. In a second scanning session a week later, participants performed two localizer tasks measuring word association and situated simulation. Conjunction analyses supported predictions of the LASS theory. Activations early in conceptual processing overlapped with activations for word association. Activations late in conceptual processing overlapped with activations for situation generation. These results, along with others in the literature, indicate that conceptual processing uses multiple representations, not one. Furthermore, researchers must be careful drawing conclusions about conceptual processing, given that different paradigms are likely to produce different mixtures of language and simulation. Whereas some paradigms produce high levels of linguistic processing and low levels of simulation, other paradigms produce the opposite pattern. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.0
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