Right hemisphere sensitivity to novel metaphoric relations: application of the signal detection theory

The present study used the signal detection theory to test the hypothesis that the right hemisphere (RH) is more sensitive than the left hemisphere (LH) to the distant semantic relations in novel metaphoric expressions. In two divided visual field experiments, sensitivity (d') and criterion (beta) were calculated for responses to different types of word pairs. In the first experiment, subjects were presented with unfamiliar two-word novel metaphoric expressions ("signal") and unrelated word-pairs ("noise"). In the second experiment, literal expressions ("signal") and unrelated word pairs ("noise") were presented. In line with the Coarse Semantic Coding Theory [Beeman, M. (1998). Coarse semantic coding and discourse comprehension. In: M. Beeman & C. Chiarello (Eds.). Right hemisphere language comprehension: Perspectives from cognitive neuroscience. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 255-284.] as well as with the Graded Salience Hypothesis [Giora, R. (2003). On our mind: Salience, context and figurative language. New York: Oxford University Press.], the findings suggest that the RH is more sensitive than the LH to unfamiliar metaphoric relations. Furthermore, this RH advantage in processing distant semantic relations did not extend to familiar semantic relations.     

Deriving meaning: Distinct neural mechanisms for metaphoric, literal, and non-meaningful sentences

In this study, we used a novel cognitive paradigm and event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging (ER-fMRI) to investigate the neural substrates involved in processing three different types of sentences. Participants read either metaphoric (Some surgeons are butchers), literal (Some surgeons are fathers), or non-meaningful sentences (Some surgeons are shelves) and had to decide whether they made sense or not. We demonstrate that processing of the different sentence types relied on distinct neural mechanisms. Activation of the left inferior frontal gyrus (LIFG), BA 47, was shared by both non-meaningful and metaphoric sentences but not by literal sentences. Furthermore, activation of the left thalamus appeared to be specifically involved in deriving meaning from metaphoric sentences despite lack of reaction times differences between literals and metaphors. We assign this to the ad hoc concept construction and open-endedness of metaphoric interpretation. In contrast to previous studies, our results do not support the view the right hemispheric is specifically involved in metaphor comprehension.     

Right hemisphere metaphor processing? Characterizing the lateralization of semantic processes

Previous laterality studies have implicated the right hemisphere in the processing of metaphors, however it is not clear if this result is due to metaphoricity per se or another aspect of semantic processing. Three divided visual field experiments varied metaphorical and literal sentence familiarity. We found a right hemisphere advantage for unfamiliar sentences containing distant semantic relationships, and a left hemisphere advantage for familiar sentences containing close semantic relationships, regardless of whether sentences were metaphorical or literal. This pattern of results is consistent with theories postulating predominantly left hemisphere processing of close semantic relationships and predominantly right hemisphere processing of distant semantic relationships.     

An fMRI investigation of the neural correlates underlying the processing of novel metaphoric expressions

The neural networks associated with processing related pairs of words forming literal, novel, and conventional metaphorical expressions and unrelated pairs of words were studied in a group of 15 normal adults using fMRI. Subjects read the four types of linguistic expressions and decided which relation exists between the two words (metaphoric, literal, or unrelated). According to the Graded Salience Hypothesis (GSH, ), which predicts a selective RH involvement in the processing of novel, nonsalient meanings, it is primarily the degree of meaning salience of a linguistic expression rather than literality or nonliterality, which modulates the degree of left hemisphere (LH) and right hemisphere (RH) processing of metaphors. In the present study, novel metaphorical expressions represented the nonsalient interpretations, whereas conventional metaphors and literal expressions represented the salient interpretations. A direct comparison of the novel metaphors vs. the conventional metaphors revealed significantly stronger activity in right posterior superior temporal sulcus, right inferior frontal gyrus, and left middle frontal gyrus. These results support the GSH and suggest a special role for the RH in processing novel metaphors. Furthermore, the right PSTS may be selectively involved in verbal creativity.     

Mixing metaphors in the cerebral hemispheres: what happens when careers collide?

Are processes of figurative comparison and figurative categorization different? An experiment combining alternative-sense and matched-sense metaphor priming with a divided visual field assessment technique sought to isolate processes of comparison and categorization in the 2 cerebral hemispheres. For target metaphors presented in the right visual field/left cerebral hemisphere (RVF/LH), only matched-sense primes were facilitative. Literal primes and alternative-sense primes had no effect on comprehension time compared to the unprimed baseline. The effects of matched-sense primes were additive with the rated conventionality of the targets. For target metaphors presented to the left visual field/right cerebral hemisphere (LVF/RH), matched-sense primes were again additively facilitative. However, alternative-sense primes, though facilitative overall, seemed to eliminate the preexisting advantages of conventional target metaphor senses in the LVF/RH in favor of metaphoric senses similar to those of the primes. These findings are consistent with tightly controlled categorical coding in the LH and coarse, flexible, context-dependent coding in the RH.     

Hemispheric processing of anaphoric inferences: the activation of multiple antecedents

This research investigates the hemispheric processing of anaphors when readers activate multiple antecedents. Participants read texts promoting an anaphoric inference and performed a lexical decision task to inference-related target words that were consistent (Experiment 1) or inconsistent (Experiment 2) with the text. These targets were preceded by constrained or less constraining text and were presented to participants' right visual field-left hemisphere or to their left visual field-right hemisphere. In Experiment 1, both hemispheres showed facilitation for consistent antecedents and the right hemisphere showed an advantage over the left hemisphere in processing antecedents when preceded by less constrained text. In Experiment 2, the left hemisphere only showed negative facilitation for inconsistent antecedents. When readers comprehend text with multiple antecedents: both hemispheres process consistent information, the left hemisphere inhibits inconsistent information, and the right hemisphere processes less constrained information.     

Hemisphere differences in conscious and unconscious word reading

Hemisphere differences in word reading were examined using explicit and implicit processing measures. In an inclusion task, which indexes both conscious (explicit) and unconscious (implicit) word reading processes, participants were briefly presented with a word in either the right or the left visual field and were asked to use this word to complete a three-letter word stem. In an exclusion task, which estimates unconscious word reading, participants completed the word stem with any word other than the prime word. Experiment 1 showed that words presented to either visual field were processed in very similar ways in both tasks, with the exception that words in the right visual field (left hemisphere) were more readily accessible for conscious report. Experiment 2 indicated that unconsciously processed words are shared between the hemispheres, as similar results were obtained when either the same or the opposite visual field received the word stem. Experiment 3 demonstrated that this sharing between hemispheres is cortically mediated by testing a split-brain patient. These results suggest that the left hemisphere advantage for word reading holds only for explicit measures; unconscious word reading is much more balanced between the hemispheres.     

Laterality in metaphor processing: lack of evidence from functional magnetic resonance imaging for the right hemisphere theory

We investigated processing of metaphoric sentences using event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Seventeen healthy subjects (6 female, 11 male) read 60 novel short German sentence pairs with either metaphoric or literal meaning and performed two different tasks: judging the metaphoric content and judging whether the sentence has a positive or negative connotation. Laterality indices for 8 regions of interest were calculated: Inferior frontal gyrus (opercular part and triangular part), superior, middle, and inferior temporal gyrus, precuneus, temporal pole, and hippocampus. A left lateralised network was activated with no significant differences in laterality between the two tasks. The lowest degree of laterality was found in the temporal pole. Other factors than metaphoricity per se might trigger right hemisphere recruitment. Results are discussed in the context of lesion and hemifield studies.     

Understanding metaphoric sentences in the two cerebral hemispheres

Previous studies indicate that the right hemisphere (RH) has a unique role in maintaining activation of metaphoric single word meanings. The present study investigated hemispheric asymmetries in comprehending metaphoric word meanings within a sentence context. Participants were presented with incomplete priming sentences followed by (literally) true, false, or metaphoric lateralized target words and were asked to decide whether each sentence is literally true or false. Results showed that responses to metaphoric sentences were slower and less accurate than to false sentences when target words were presented to the right visual field (RVF)-LH as well as to the left visual field (LVF)-RH. This suggests that the understanding of lexical metaphors within a sentence context involves LH as well as RH processing mechanisms and that the role of each hemisphere in processing nonliteral language is flexible and may depend on the linguistic task at hand.     

Individual differences in spatial relation processing: effects of strategy, ability, and gender

Numerous studies have focused on the distinction between categorical and coordinate spatial relations. Categorical relations are propositional and abstract, and often related to a left hemisphere advantage. Coordinate relations specify the metric information of the relative locations of objects, and can be linked to right hemisphere processing. Yet, not all studies have reported such a clear double dissociation; in particular the categorical left hemisphere advantage is not always reported. In the current study we investigated whether verbal and spatial strategies, verbal and spatial cognitive abilities, and gender could account for the discrepancies observed in hemispheric lateralization of spatial relations. Seventy-five participants performed two visual half field, match-to-sample tasks (Van der Ham, van Wezel, Oleksiak, & Postma, 2007; Van der Ham, Raemaekers, van Wezel, Oleksiak, and Postma, 2009) to study the lateralization of categorical and coordinate relation processing. For each participant we determined the strategy they used in each of the two tasks. Consistent with previous findings, we found an overall categorical left hemisphere advantage and coordinate right hemisphere advantage. The lateralization pattern was affected selectively by the degree to which participants used a spatial strategy and by none of the other variables (i.e., verbal strategy, cognitive abilities, and gender). Critically, the categorical left hemisphere advantage was observed only for participants that relied strongly on a spatial strategy. This result is another piece of evidence that categorical spatial relation processing relies on spatial and not verbal processes.     

Visual field asymmetries for motion processing in deaf and hearing signers

Recently, we reported a strong right visual field/left hemisphere advantage for motion processing in deaf signers and a slight reverse asymmetry in hearing nonsigners (Bosworth & Dobkins, 1999). This visual field asymmetry in deaf signers may be due to auditory deprivation or to experience with a visual-manual language, American Sign Language (ASL). In order to separate these two possible sources, in this study we added a third group, hearing native signers, who have normal hearing and have learned ASL from their deaf parents. As in our previous study, subjects performed a direction-of-motion discrimination task at different locations across the visual field. In addition to investigating differences in left vs right visual field asymmetries across subject groups, we also asked whether performance differences exist for superior vs inferior visual fields and peripheral vs central visual fields. Replicating our previous study, a robust right visual field advantage was observed in deaf signers, but not in hearing nonsigners. Like deaf signers, hearing signers also exhibited a strong right visual field advantage, suggesting that this effect is related to experience with sign language. These results suggest that perceptual processes required for the acquisition and comprehension of language (motion processing in the case of ASL) are recruited by the left, language-dominant, hemisphere. Deaf subjects also exhibited an inferior visual field advantage that was significantly larger than that observed in either hearing group. In addition, there was a trend for deaf subjects to perform relatively better on peripheral than on central stimuli, while both hearing groups showed the reverse pattern. Because deaf signers differed from hearing signers and nonsigners along these domains, the inferior and peripheral visual field advantages observed in deaf subjects is presumably related to auditory deprivation. Finally, these visual field asymmetries were not modulated by attention for any subject group, suggesting they are a result of sensory, and not attentional, factors.     

Functional-anatomical organization of predicate metaphor processing

The bulk of the research on the neural organization of metaphor comprehension has focused on nominal metaphors and the metaphoric relationships between word pairs. By contrast, little work has been conducted on predicate metaphors using verbs of motion such as “The man fell under her spell.” We examined predicate metaphors as compared to literal sentences of motion such as “The child fell under the slide” in an event-related, functional MRI study. Our results demonstrated greater activation in the left inferior frontal cortex and left lateral temporal lobe for predicate metaphors as compared to literal sentences, while no differences were seen in homologous areas of the right hemisphere. We suggest that the results support a neural organization principle for motion processing in which greater abstraction proceeds along a posterior-to-anterior axis within the lateral portion of the left temporal cortex.     

Understanding metaphors: Is the right hemisphere uniquely involved?

Two divided visual field priming experiments examined cerebral asymmetries for understanding metaphors varying in sentence constraint. Experiment 1 investigated ambiguous words (e.g., SWEET and BRIGHT) with literal and metaphoric meanings in ambiguous and unambiguous sentence contexts, while Experiment 2 involved standard metaphors (e.g., The drink you gave me was a meteor) with sententially consistent and inconsistent targets (i.e., POTENT vs COMET). Similar literal and metaphor priming effects were found in both visual fields across most experimental conditions. However, RH processes also maintained activation of sententially inconsistent literal meanings following metaphoric expressions. These results do not strongly support the RH as the preferred substrate for metaphor comprehension (e.g., ), and suggest that processes in both hemispheres can support metaphor comprehension, although not via identical mechanisms. The LH may utilize sentence constraint to select and integrate only contextually relevant literal and metaphoric meanings, whereas the RH may be less sensitive to sentence context and can maintain the activation of some alternative interpretations. This may be potentially useful in situations where an initial understanding must be revised.     

Comprehending anaphoric metaphors

In this study we investigate the comprehension of various kinds of anaphoric metaphors in context. We describe an experiment that manipulated the metaphoricity of simple noun + verb + ending sentences by using either a metaphoric noun or a metaphoric verb or both. Our results show that metaphoric nouns affect sentence comprehension to a greater extent than do metaphoric verbs. Thus, even though there were no sentence-reading time differences between metaphoric and literal targets, metaphoric nouns were read more slowly than were literal nouns, and they also affected the reading time of the following verb. Moreover, in trials involving metaphoric-noun targets, participants read the endings of the targets faster and made more mistakes in answering posttrial questions than they did in literal-noun trials. We argue that these results suggest a comprehension deficit for anaphoric noun metaphors even when they are preceded by a context.     

Hemispheric Differences in the Processing of Words Learned Early Versus Later in Childhood

The research investigated whether there are hemispheric differences in processing for words acquired early in childhood (early AoA) and words acquired later in childhood (late AoA). We hypothesized that because of recent evidence suggesting that there is a right hemisphere dominance in early childhood, early AoA words would be represented in the right hemisphere, and late AoA words would be represented in the left hemisphere. This hypothesis differs from an early view that late AoA words would be represented in the left hemisphere, and early AoA words would be represented in both hemispheres (Gazzaniga, 1974). We report two experiments using the divided visual field (DVF) technique. The results showed that there was a right visual field (RVF)/left hemisphere (LH) advantage only for late AoA words. For early AoA words, there was a left visual field (LVF)/right hemisphere advantage (RH). Implications for theories of hemispheric differences in word processing are discussed.     

汉语隐喻理解时程的ERPs研究

摘 要 本研究使用ERPs技术考察隐喻句与本义句理解时程的异同,以研究汉语隐喻的理解机制。以句尾范式向被试随机呈现本义句、熟悉隐喻句、新奇隐喻句及错误义句各50句,被试的任务为判断每句话是否有意义。结果显示：两种隐喻句诱发的N400波形与头皮分布情况和本义句无明显差异,且两种隐喻句诱发的N400波幅高于本义句。本研究结果证明汉语隐喻义和本义理解的认知机制类似,支持隐喻理解的平行加工假说,且加工隐喻义需要耗费更多的认知资源。     

Cognitive consequences of asymmetrical visual distraction

The authors explored whether manipulating the location of distraction in the participants' visual field influences the degree of competition between visual and other cognitive processes. If a cognitive task is lateralized to a particular hemisphere, visual distraction directed toward that same hemisphere should impair performance on that task more than should visual distraction directed toward the other hemisphere. Consistent with this hypothesis, the authors found in Experiments 1 and 2 that participants better recalled words of high imageability in a verbal memory task when the examiner was in the participant's left visual field (right hemisphere) than when the examiner was in the participant's right visual field (left hemisphere). In Experiment 3, the authors found that this effect reversed for performance on a right-hemisphere spatial task.     

Is Happy Facial Expression Identified by the Left or Right Hemisphere？

1IntroductionCorrectly identifying other people′s facial ex-pressions of emotions is important to human socialinteraction in all societies.Many studies suggestthat the identification of facial expressions in par-ticular and perceptual processing of emotional infor-mation is carried out mainly by the right hemi-sphere of the brain[1￣7].Damage to the righthemisphere generally produces more significant im-pairment in recognition of all facial expressions ofemotion than damage to the left hemisp…     

Phonological processing of words in right- and left-handers

It is commonly accepted that phonology is the exclusive domain of the left hemisphere. However, this pattern of lateralization, which posits a right visual field advantage, has been questioned by several studies. In fact, certain factors such as characteristics of the stimuli and subjects' handedness can modulate the right visual field advantage. Thus, the goal of this study was to compare the hemispheric dynamics of right-handers and left-handers during a divided visual field presentation of words that varied in terms of their phonological transparency. For non-transparent words, the left hemisphere seems more competent in both handedness groups. With regard to transparent words, the right hemisphere of both groups also appears competent. Surprisingly, left-handers achieved optimal processing with a functionally isolated left hemisphere, whereas right-handers needed the participation of both hemispheres. The pattern of performance cannot be fully explained by either the callosal or the direct access model.     

The bilateral effect: callosal inhibition or intrahemispheric competition?

The magnification of visual field asymmetry observed with bilateral compared to unilateral tachistoscopic presentation of homologous stimuli (bilateral effect) can be explained by two hypothetical processes: homologous activation with subsequent inhibition of callosal information transfer or intrahemispheric competition for processing resources. A lexical decision task with unilateral and bilateral stimulation and response with the right or left hand was used in an attempt to decide between these hypotheses. Analysis of response time data revealed a bilateral effect, superimposed on a right visual field advantage, and no interaction between visual field and response hand. Results are consistent with the hypothesis of intrahemispheric competition in the left hemisphere.