4.4 Article

Emotional and temporal aspects of situation model processing during text comprehension: An event-related fMRI study

期刊

JOURNAL OF COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE
卷 17, 期 5, 页码 724-739

出版社

MIT PRESS
DOI: 10.1162/0898929053747658

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Language comprehension in everyday life requires the continuous integration of prior discourse context and general world knowledge with the current utterance or sentence. In the neurolinguistic literature, these so-called situation model building processes have been ascribed to the prefrontal cortex or to the right hemisphere. In this study, we use whole-head event-related fMRI to directly map the neural correlates of narrative comprehension in context. While being scanned using a spin-echo sequence, 20 participants listened to 32 short stories, half of which contained globally inconsistent information. The inconsistencies concerned either consistent temporal or chronological information or the emotional status of the protagonist. Hearing an inconsistent word elicited activation in the right anterior temporal lobe. The comparison of different information aspects revealed activation in the left precuneus and a bilateral frontoparietal network for chronological information. Emotional information elicited activation in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex and the extended amygdaloid complex. In addition, the integration of inconsistent emotional information engaged the dorsal frontomedial cortex (Brodmann's area 8/9), whereas the integration of inconsistent temporal information required the lateral prefrontal cortex bilaterally. These results indicate that listening to stories can elicit activation reflecting content-specific processes. Furthermore, updating of the situation model is not a unitary process but it also depends on the particular requirements of the text. The right hemisphere contributes to language processing in context, but equally important are the left medial and bilateral prefrontal cortices.

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

4.4
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