From reference to sense: how the brain encodes meaning for speaking

Neural sensitivity to semantic neighbors is stable across the adult lifespan

As we age, language reflects patterns of both stability and change. On the one hand, vocabulary and semantic abilities are largely stable across the adult lifespan, yet lexical retrieval is often slower and less successful (i.e., slower picture naming times, increased tip of the tongue incidents). Although the behavioral bases of these effects have been well established, less is known about the brain regions that support these age-related differences. We used functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) to examine the neural basis of picture naming. Specifically, we were interested in whether older adults would be equally sensitive to semantic characteristics, specifically the number of semantic near neighbors. Near neighbors, defined here as items with a high degree of semantic feature overlap, were of interest as these are thought to elicit competition among potential candidates and increase naming difficulty. Consistent with prior reports, pictures with more semantic near neighbors were named more slowly and less accurately for all adults. Additionally, this interference for naming times was larger as age increased, starting around 30 years old. In contrast to the age-related behavioral slowing, the neural basis of these effects was stable across adulthood. Across all adults, a number of language-relevant regions including left posterior middle temporal gyrus and left inferior frontal gyrus, pars triangularis were sensitive to the number of near neighbors. Our results suggest that although middle-aged and older adults' picture naming is more slowed by increased semantic competition, the brain regions supporting semantic processes remain stable across the adult lifespan.

The Neural Correlates of Semantic and Grammatical Encoding During Sentence Production in a Second Language: Evidence From an fMRI Study Using Structural Priming

Japanese English learners have difficulty speaking Double Object (DO; give B A) than Prepositional Object (PO; give A to B) structures which neural underpinning is unknown. In speaking, syntactic and phonological processing follow semantic encoding, conversion of non-verbal mental representation into a structure suitable for expression. To test whether DO difficulty lies in linguistic or prelinguistic process, we conducted functional magnetic resonance imaging. Thirty participants described cartoons using DO or PO, or simply named them. Greater reaction times and error rates indicated DO difficulty. DO compared with PO showed parieto-frontal activation including left inferior frontal gyrus, reflecting linguistic process. Psychological priming in PO produced immediately after DO and vice versa compared to after control, indicated shared process between PO and DO. Cross-structural neural repetition suppression was observed in occipito-parietal regions, overlapping the linguistic system in pre-SMA. Thus DO and PO share prelinguistic process, whereas linguistic process imposes overload in DO.

Incidental Verbal Semantic Processing Recruits the Fronto-temporal Semantic Control Network

The frontoparietal semantic network, encompassing the inferior frontal gyrus and the posterior middle temporal cortex, is considered to be involved in semantic control processes. The explicit versus implicit nature of these control processes remains however poorly understood. The present study examined this question by assessing regional brain responses to the semantic attributes of an unattended stream of auditory words while participants' top-down attentional control processes were absorbed by a demanding visual search task. Response selectivity to semantic aspects of verbal stimuli was assessed via a functional magnetic resonance imaging response adaptation paradigm. We observed that implicit semantic processing of an unattended verbal stream recruited not only unimodal and amodal cortices in posterior supporting semantic knowledge areas, but also inferior frontal and posterior middle temporal areas considered to be part of the semantic control network. These results indicate that frontotemporal semantic networks support incidental semantic (control) processes.

Lack of selectivity for syntax relative to word meanings throughout the language network

To understand what you are reading now, your mind retrieves the meanings of words and constructions from a linguistic knowledge store (lexico-semantic processing) and identifies the relationships among them to construct a complex meaning (syntactic or combinatorial processing). Do these two sets of processes rely on distinct, specialized mechanisms or, rather, share a common pool of resources? Linguistic theorizing, empirical evidence from language acquisition and processing, and computational modeling have jointly painted a picture whereby lexico-semantic and syntactic processing are deeply inter-connected and perhaps not separable. In contrast, many current proposals of the neural architecture of language continue to endorse a view whereby certain brain regions selectively support syntactic/combinatorial processing, although the locus of such "syntactic hub", and its nature, vary across proposals. Here, we searched for selectivity for syntactic over lexico-semantic processing using a powerful individual-subjects fMRI approach across three sentence comprehension paradigms that have been used in prior work to argue for such selectivity: responses to lexico-semantic vs. morpho-syntactic violations (Experiment 1); recovery from neural suppression across pairs of sentences differing in only lexical items vs. only syntactic structure (Experiment 2); and same/different meaning judgments on such sentence pairs (Experiment 3). Across experiments, both lexico-semantic and syntactic conditions elicited robust responses throughout the left fronto-temporal language network. Critically, however, no regions were more strongly engaged by syntactic than lexico-semantic processing, although some regions showed the opposite pattern. Thus, contra many current proposals of the neural architecture of language, syntactic/combinatorial processing is not separable from lexico-semantic processing at the level of brain regions-or even voxel subsets-within the language network, in line with strong integration between these two processes that has been consistently observed in behavioral and computational language research. The results further suggest that the language network may be generally more strongly concerned with meaning than syntactic form, in line with the primary function of language-to share meanings across minds.

Lack of selectivity for syntax relative to word meanings throughout the language network

To understand what you are reading now, your mind retrieves the meanings of words and constructions from a linguistic knowledge store (lexico-semantic processing) and identifies the relationships among them to construct a complex meaning (syntactic or combinatorial processing). Do these two sets of processes rely on distinct, specialized mechanisms or, rather, share a common pool of resources? Linguistic theorizing, empirical evidence from language acquisition and processing, and computational modeling have jointly painted a picture whereby lexico-semantic and syntactic processing are deeply inter-connected and perhaps not separable. In contrast, many current proposals of the neural architecture of language continue to endorse a view whereby certain brain regions selectively support syntactic/combinatorial processing, although the locus of such "syntactic hub", and its nature, vary across proposals. Here, we searched for selectivity for syntactic over lexico-semantic processing using a powerful individual-subjects fMRI approach across three sentence comprehension paradigms that have been used in prior work to argue for such selectivity: responses to lexico-semantic vs. morpho-syntactic violations (Experiment 1); recovery from neural suppression across pairs of sentences differing in only lexical items vs. only syntactic structure (Experiment 2); and same/different meaning judgments on such sentence pairs (Experiment 3). Across experiments, both lexico-semantic and syntactic conditions elicited robust responses throughout the left fronto-temporal language network. Critically, however, no regions were more strongly engaged by syntactic than lexico-semantic processing, although some regions showed the opposite pattern. Thus, contra many current proposals of the neural architecture of language, syntactic/combinatorial processing is not separable from lexico-semantic processing at the level of brain regions-or even voxel subsets-within the language network, in line with strong integration between these two processes that has been consistently observed in behavioral and computational language research. The results further suggest that the language network may be generally more strongly concerned with meaning than syntactic form, in line with the primary function of language-to share meanings across minds.

Neural networks for sentence comprehension and production: An ALE-based meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies

Comprehending and producing sentences is a complex endeavor requiring the coordinated activity of multiple brain regions. We examined three issues related to the brain networks underlying sentence comprehension and production in healthy individuals: First, which regions are recruited for sentence comprehension and sentence production? Second, are there differences for auditory sentence comprehension vs. visual sentence comprehension? Third, which regions are specifically recruited for the comprehension of syntactically complex sentences? Results from activation likelihood estimation (ALE) analyses (from 45 studies) implicated a sentence comprehension network occupying bilateral frontal and temporal lobe regions. Regions implicated in production (from 15 studies) overlapped with the set of regions associated with sentence comprehension in the left hemisphere, but did not include inferior frontal cortex, and did not extend to the right hemisphere. Modality differences between auditory and visual sentence comprehension were found principally in the temporal lobes. Results from the analysis of complex syntax (from 37 studies) showed engagement of left inferior frontal and posterior temporal regions, as well as the right insula. The involvement of the right hemisphere in the comprehension of these structures has potentially important implications for language treatment and recovery in individuals with agrammatic aphasia following left hemisphere brain damage.

Genetic algorithm supported by graphical processing unit improves the exploration of effective connectivity in functional brain imaging

Brain regions of human subjects exhibit certain levels of associated activation upon specific environmental stimuli. Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) detects regional signals, based on which we could infer the direct or indirect neuronal connectivity between the regions. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) is an appropriate mathematical approach for analyzing the effective connectivity using fMRI data. A maximum likelihood (ML) discrepancy function is minimized against some constrained coefficients of a path model. The minimization is an iterative process. The computing time is very long as the number of iterations increases geometrically with the number of path coefficients. Using regular Quad-Core Central Processing Unit (CPU) platform, duration up to 3 months is required for the iterations from 0 to 30 path coefficients. This study demonstrates the application of Graphical Processing Unit (GPU) with the parallel Genetic Algorithm (GA) that replaces the Powell minimization in the standard program code of the analysis software package. It was found in the same example that GA under GPU reduced the duration to 20 h and provided more accurate solution when compared with standard program code under CPU.

Linking Neuroimaging with Functional Linguistic Analysis to Understand Processes of Successful Communication

Functional linguistic models posit a systematic link between language FORM and the FUNCTIONS for which language is used. This is a systematic (and therefore quantifiable) relationship. Yet, many open questions remain about the mechanisms that link form, function and communication relevant outcomes. Neuroimaging methods can provide insight into such processes that are not apparent from other methods. We argue that the combination of neural and linguistic measures will allow insight into both individual and population-level communication processes that would not be possible using either method in isolation. We present examples illustrating this methodological integration and notes regarding the most amenable linguistic tools. We summarize a framework in which language presented to and produced by participants undergoing neuroimaging is correlated with the resulting neural data and other proximal communication outcomes allowing the triangulation of individual experimental with population level outcomes, thereby linking between micro and macro levels of analysis.

Producing Speech with a Newly Learned Morphosyntax and Vocabulary: An Magnetoencephalography Study

Ten participants learned a miniature language (Anigram), which they later employed to verbally describe a pictured event. Using magnetoencephalography, the cortical dynamics of sentence production in Anigram was compared with that in the native tongue from the preparation phase up to the production of the final word. At the preparation phase, a cartoon image with two animals prompted the participants to plan either the corresponding simple sentence (e.g., “the bear hits the lion”) or a grammar-free list of the two nouns (“the bear, the lion”). For the newly learned language, this stage induced stronger left angular and adjacent inferior parietal activations than for the native language, likely reflecting a higher load on lexical retrieval and STM storage. The preparation phase was followed by a cloze task where the participants were prompted to produce the last word of the sentence or word sequence. Production of the sentence-final word required retrieval of rule-based inflectional morphology and was accompanied by increased activation of the left middle superior temporal cortex that did not differ between the two languages. Activation of the right temporal cortex during the cloze task suggested that this area plays a role in integrating word meanings into the sentence frame. The present results indicate that, after just a few days of exposure, the newly learned language harnesses the neural resources for multiword production much the same way as the native tongue and that the left and right temporal cortices seem to have functionally different roles in this processing.

The neuronal infrastructure of speaking

Models of speaking distinguish producing meaning, words and syntax as three different linguistic components of speaking. Nevertheless, little is known about the brain's integrated neuronal infrastructure for speech production. We investigated semantic, lexical and syntactic aspects of speaking using fMRI. In a picture description task, we manipulated repetition of sentence meaning, words, and syntax separately. By investigating brain areas showing response adaptation to repetition of each of these sentence properties, we disentangle the neuronal infrastructure for these processes. We demonstrate that semantic, lexical and syntactic processes are carried out in partly overlapping and partly distinct brain networks and show that the classic left-hemispheric dominance for language is present for syntax but not semantics.

Toward a neural basis of interactive alignment in conversation

The interactive-alignment account of dialogue proposes that interlocutors achieve conversational success by aligning their understanding of the situation under discussion. Such alignment occurs because they prime each other at different levels of representation (e.g., phonology, syntax, semantics), and this is possible because these representations are shared across production and comprehension. In this paper, we briefly review the behavioral evidence, and then consider how findings from cognitive neuroscience might lend support to this account, on the assumption that alignment of neural activity corresponds to alignment of mental states. We first review work supporting representational parity between production and comprehension, and suggest that neural activity associated with phonological, lexical, and syntactic aspects of production and comprehension are closely related. We next consider evidence for the neural bases of the activation and use of situation models during production and comprehension, and how these demonstrate the activation of non-linguistic conceptual representations associated with language use. We then review evidence for alignment of neural mechanisms that are specific to the act of communication. Finally, we suggest some avenues of further research that need to be explored to test crucial predictions of the interactive alignment account.