Correo Electrónico
DNINFOA - SIA
Bibliotecas
Convocatorias
Identidad U.N.
Publicado
Diferencias temporales y espaciales en el procesamiento de incongruencias léxicas: un estudio de potenciales relacionados a eventos
Temporal and spatial differences in the processing of lexical incongruities: A study of event-related potentials
Palabras clave:
Lenguaje, Semántica, Electroencefalografía (es)Language, Semantics, Electroencephalography (en)
Introducción. La comprensión del lenguaje está determinada por diversos procesos, entre los que se encuentra el reconocimiento léxico. Según el modelo conexionista, este reconocimiento se genera por activación mediante el emparejamiento de la información acumulada y por la inhibición de las entradas léxicas que compiten por activación.
Objetivo. Determinar las diferencias temporales y espaciales de procesamiento entre las incongruencias léxicas semánticamente relacionadas a un contexto lingüístico oracional y las no relacionadas a través de mediciones electrofisiológicas de potenciales relacionados a eventos (PRE).
Materiales y métodos. Se realizó la medición de los PRE en 10 sujetos sanos por medio de un paradigma de 240 oraciones en español agrupadas de la siguiente manera: 80 oraciones congruentes, 80 con incongruencias dentro del campo léxico y 80 con incongruencias fuera del campo léxico.
Resultados. Se observó una diferencia estadística en la latencia de aparición del componente N400 entre las dos condiciones. Por su parte, se encontró una mayor activación del precúneo, del giro orbitofrontal, del giro angular y del giro supramarginal en la condición de incongruencia fuera del campo léxico.
Conclusión. Se identificaron diferencias temporales y espaciales (activación del precúneo, del giro orbitofrontal, del giro angular y del giro supramarginal) entre el procesamiento de las incongruencias léxicas y no léxicas.
Introduction: Language understanding depends on several processes, including lexical recognition. According to the connectionist model, this recognition is generated by activation through the matching of accumulated information and by the inhibition of lexical entries that compete for activation.
Objective: To determine, through electrophysiological measurements of event-related potentials (ERP), temporal and spatial processing differences between lexical inconsistencies semantically related to a sentence linguistic context and those that are unrelated.
Materials and methods: ERPs were measured in 10 healthy subjects by means of a 240 Spanish sentences paradigm grouped as follows: 80 congruent sentences, 80 sentences with lexical incongruities, and 80 with non-lexical incongruities.
Results: A statistical difference was found in the latency of appearance of the N400 component between both conditions. On the other hand, a greater activation of the precuneus, the orbitofrontal gyrus, the angular gyrus and the supramarginal gyrus was observed in the non-lexical incongruity condition.
Conclusion: There are temporal and spatial (activation of the precuneus, the orbitofrontal gyrus, the angular gyrus and the supramarginal gyrus) differences between the processing of lexical inconsistencies and the processing of non-lexical inconsistencies.
Descargas
Citas
Collins AM, Loftus EA. Spreading Activation Theory of Semantic Processing. Psychological Review. 1975;82(6):407-28. http://doi.org/cfgm67.
Vinson DP, Vigliocco G, Cappa S, Siri S. The breakdown of semantic knowledge: insights from a statistical model of meaning representation. Brain Lang. 2003;86(3):347-65. http://doi.org/dr5xr6.
Quillian MR. Word concepts: A theory and simulation of some basic semantic capabilities. Behav Sci. 1967;12(5):410-30. http://doi.org/ck488t.
Norris D, McQueen JM, Cutler A. Merging information in speech recognition: Feedback is never necessary. Behav Brain Sci. 2000;23(3):299-370. http://doi.org/d3fjxw.
Quiroga RQ, Reddy L, Kreiman G, Koch C, Fried I. Invariant visual representation by single neurons in the human brain. Nature. 2005;435(7045):1102-7. http://doi.org/cmzdk9.
Mesulam MM, Thompson CK, Weintraub S, Rogalski EJ. The Wernicke conundrum and the anatomy of language comprehension in primary progressive aphasia. Brain. 2015;138
(Pt 8):2423-37. http://doi.org/f7pm7x.
Lau EF, Phillips C, Poeppel D. A cortical network for semantics: (de)constructing the N400. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2008;9(12):920-33.
Davis MH, Gaskell MG. A complementary systems account of word learning: neural and behavioural evidence. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2009;364(1536):3773-800. http://doi.org/dwt49d.
Obleser J, Kotz SA. Expectancy constraints in degraded speech modulate the language comprehension network. Cereb Cortex. 2009;20(3):633-40. http://doi.org/cjmfsk.
Schell M, Zaccarella E, Friederici A. Differential cortical contribution of syntax and semantics: An fMRI study on two-word phrasal processing. Cortex. 2017;96;105-20. http://doi.org/gcnp52.
Sharp DJ, Awad M, Warren JE, Wise RJ, Vigliocco G, Scott SK. The neural responses to changing semantic and perceptual complexity during language procesing. Hum Brain Mapp. 2010;31(3):365-77. http://doi.org/d9654m.
Gagnepain P, Henson RN, Davis MH. Temporal predictive codes for spoken words in auditory cortex. Curr Biol. 2012;22(7):615-21. http://doi.org/gf2bwk.
Friederici AD, Kotz SA, Scott SK, Obleser J. Disentangling syntax and intelligibility in auditory language comprehension. Hum Brain Mapp. 2009;31(3):448-57. http://doi.org/bsbmfs.
Kutas M, Hillyard SA. An electrophysiological probe of incidental semantic association. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 1989;1(1):38-49. http://doi.org/cbdqh2.
Kutas M, Federmeier KD. Thirty years and counting: finding meaning in the N400 component of the event-related brain potential (ERP). Annu Rev Psychol. 2011;62:621-47. http://doi.org/c4tfhz.
Obleser J, Zimmermann J, Van Meter J, Rauschecker JP. Multiple stages of auditory speech perception reflected in event-related FMRI. Cereb Cortex. 2007;17(10):2251-7. http://doi.org/dqgh3h.
Holcomb PJ, Kounios J, Anderson JE, West WC. Dual-coding, context-availability, and concreteness effects in sentence comprehension: An electrophysiological investigation. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1999;25(3):721-42. http://doi.org/bmx8wx.
Lau E, Almeida D, Hines PC, Poeppel D. A lexical basis for N400 context effects: evidence from MEG. Brain Lang. 2009;111(3):161-72. http://doi.org/cm53r7.
Molinaro N, Carreiras M, Duñabeitia JA. Semantic combinatorial processing of non-anomalous expressions. Neuroimage. 2012;59(4):3488-501. http://doi.org/b386fm.
Freunberger D, Roehm D. Semantic prediction in language comprehension: evidence from brain potentials. Lang Cogn Neurosci. 2016;31(9):1193-205. http://doi.org/f3s5r7.
Wlotko EW, Federmeier KD. So that’s what you meant! Event- related potentials reveal multiple aspects of context use during construction of message-level meaning. Neuroimage. 2012;62(1):356-66. http://doi.org/f32253.
Vasquez G, Fernández A, Martí MA. Dealing with lexical semantic mismatches between Spanish and English. En: Sasikumar, M, Durgesh, R, Prakash, PR. Knowledge based computer system Allied India 2000.
Sadowsky S, Martínez-Gamboa R. LIFCACH 2.0: Word Frequency List of Chilean Spanish (Lista de Frecuencias de Palabras del Castellano de Chile), version 2.0. Zenodo; 2012. http://doi.org/c8nx.
World Medical Association (WMA). WMA Declaration of Helsinki - Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Fortaleza: 64th WMA General Assembly; 2013.
Daltrozzo J, Wioland N Kotchoubey B. The N400 and Late Positive Complex (LPC) Effects Reflect Controlled Rather than Automatic Mechanisms of Sentence Processing. Brain Sci. 2012;2(3):267-97. http://doi.org/gb9r4n.
León-Cabrera P, Rodríguez-Fornells A, Morís J. Electrophysiological correlates of semantic anticipation during speech comprehension. Neuropsychologia. 2017;99:
-34. http://doi.org/f97w3z.
Binder JR, Desai RH, Graves WW, Conant LL. Where Is the Semantic System? A Critical Review and Meta-Analysis of 120 Functional Neuroimaging Studies. Cerebral Cortex. 2009;19(12):2767-96. http://doi.org/c2vp52.
Rademacher J, Galaburda AM, Kennedy DN, Filipek PA, Caviness VS Jr. Human cerebral cortex: localization, parcellation and morphometry with magnetic resonance imaging. J Cogn Neurosci. 1992;4(4):352-74. http://doi.org/cgrqc2.
Mesulam MM, Van Hoesen GW, Pandya DN, Geschwind N. Limbic and sensory connections of the inferior parietal lobule (Area PG) in the rhesus monkey: a study with a new method for horseradish peroxidase histochemistry. Brain Res. 1977;136(3):393-414. http://doi.org/ccrcdt.
Benson DF, Cummings JL, Tsai SY. Angular gyrus syndrome simulating Alzheimer’s disease. Arch Neurol. 1982;
(10):616-20. http://doi.org/bqr9z8.
Dronkers NF, Wilkins DP, Van Valin RD, Redfern BB, Jaeger JJ. Lesion analysis of the brain areas involved in language comprehension. Cognition. 2004;92(1-2):145-77. http://doi.org/dqkbz5.
Xu J, Kemeny S, Park G, Frattali C, Braun A. Language in context: emergent features of word, sentence, and narrative comprehension. Neuroimage. 2005;25(3):1002-15. http://doi.org/d7n4wh.
Wu CY, Ho MH, Chen SH. A meta-analysis of fMRI studies on Chinese orthographic, phonological, and semantic processing. Neuroimage. 2012;63(1): 381-91. http://doi.org/f39766.
Deschamps I, Baum SR, Gracco VL. On the role of the supramarginal gyrus in phonological processing and verbal working memory: evidence from rTMS studies. Neuropsychologia. 2014;53:39-46. http://doi.org/f5s2xf.
Fiez JA, Petersen SE. Neuroimaging studies of word reading. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998;95(3):914-21. http://doi.org/d8gjm5.
Huettel SA, McCarthy G. What is odd in the oddball task? Prefrontal cortex is activated by dynamic changes in response strategy. Neuropsychologia. 2004;42(3):379-86. http://doi.org/cbb758.
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2020 Revista de la Facultad de Medicina
Esta obra está bajo una licencia Creative Commons Reconocimiento 3.0 Unported.
-
