4.6 Article

Duality of Function: Activation for Meaningless Nonwords and Semantic Codes in the Same Brain Areas

期刊

CEREBRAL CORTEX
卷 28, 期 7, 页码 2516-2524

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/cercor/bhy053

关键词

difficulty effects; fMRI; MVPA; reading; word recognition

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [K99/R00 HD065839]
  2. EUNICE KENNEDY SHRIVER NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH & HUMAN DEVELOPMENT [R00HD065839] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Studies of the neural substrates of semantic (word meaning) processing have typically focused on semantic manipulations, with less consideration for potential differences in difficulty across conditions. While the idea that particular brain regions can support multiple functions is widely accepted, studies of specific cognitive domains rarely test for co-location with other functions. Here we start with standard univariate analyses comparing words to meaningless nonwords, replicating our recent finding that this contrast can activate task-positive regions for words, and default-mode regions in the putative semantic network for nonwords, pointing to difficulty effects. Critically, this was followed up with a multivariate analysis to test whether the same areas activated for meaningless nonwords contained semantic information sufficient to distinguish high-from low-imageability words. Indeed, this classification was performed reliably better than chance at 75% accuracy. This is compatible with two non-exclusive interpretations. Numerous areas in the default-mode network are task-negative in the sense of activating for less demanding conditions, and the same areas contain information supporting semantic cognition. Therefore, while areas of the default mode network have been hypothesized to support semantic cognition, we offer evidence that these areas can respond to both domain-general difficulty effects, and to specific aspects of semantics.

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

4.6
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