Suppressing contextually irrelevant meanings of homophonic versus heterophonic homographs: A tDCS study targeting LIFG

IF 2.2 3区 心理学 Q3 NEUROSCIENCES
{"title":"Suppressing contextually irrelevant meanings of homophonic versus heterophonic homographs: A tDCS study targeting LIFG","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.bandc.2024.106212","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Readers frequently encounter homographs (e.g., bank) whose resolution requires selection-suppression processes: selecting the contextually relevant meaning, while suppressing the irrelevant one. In two experiments, we investigated how these processes are modulated by the phonological status of the homograph (homographs with one vs. two possible pronunciations); and what is the involvement of the left inferior frontal gyrus (LIFG, including Broca’s area) in these processes. To these ends, Experiment 1 utilized the context verification task with two types of Hebrew homographs: homophonic (e.g., bank) and heterophonic (e.g., tear). In the task, participants read sentences ending either with a homograph (e.g., bank) or an unambiguous word (e.g., shore). The sentences were biased towards the homograph’s subordinate meaning (e.g., The fisherman sat on the bank/shore), and were followed by a target word related to the homograph’s dominant meaning (e.g., MONEY). The participants were asked to judge whether the target was related to the overall meaning of the sentence. An ambiguity effect was observed for both types of homographs, reflecting interference from the irrelevant dominant meaning. However, this ambiguity effect was larger for heterophonic than for homophonic homographs, indicating that dominant meanings of heterophonic homographs are more difficult to suppress. Experiment 2 was identical, except that the procedure was coupled with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over the LIFG (including Broca’s area). We found that stimulating the LIFG abolished the ambiguity effect, but only in the case of heterophonic homographs. Together, these findings highlight the distinction between phonological and semantic levels of selection-suppression processes, and the involvement of the LIFG in the phonological level of these processes.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":55331,"journal":{"name":"Brain and Cognition","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brain and Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278262624000897","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Readers frequently encounter homographs (e.g., bank) whose resolution requires selection-suppression processes: selecting the contextually relevant meaning, while suppressing the irrelevant one. In two experiments, we investigated how these processes are modulated by the phonological status of the homograph (homographs with one vs. two possible pronunciations); and what is the involvement of the left inferior frontal gyrus (LIFG, including Broca’s area) in these processes. To these ends, Experiment 1 utilized the context verification task with two types of Hebrew homographs: homophonic (e.g., bank) and heterophonic (e.g., tear). In the task, participants read sentences ending either with a homograph (e.g., bank) or an unambiguous word (e.g., shore). The sentences were biased towards the homograph’s subordinate meaning (e.g., The fisherman sat on the bank/shore), and were followed by a target word related to the homograph’s dominant meaning (e.g., MONEY). The participants were asked to judge whether the target was related to the overall meaning of the sentence. An ambiguity effect was observed for both types of homographs, reflecting interference from the irrelevant dominant meaning. However, this ambiguity effect was larger for heterophonic than for homophonic homographs, indicating that dominant meanings of heterophonic homographs are more difficult to suppress. Experiment 2 was identical, except that the procedure was coupled with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over the LIFG (including Broca’s area). We found that stimulating the LIFG abolished the ambiguity effect, but only in the case of heterophonic homographs. Together, these findings highlight the distinction between phonological and semantic levels of selection-suppression processes, and the involvement of the LIFG in the phonological level of these processes.

抑制同音异义同形词的上下文无关含义针对 LIFG 的 tDCS 研究
读者经常会遇到同形词(如 bank),解决这些同形词需要选择-抑制过程:选择与上下文相关的意思,同时抑制不相关的意思。在两个实验中,我们研究了这些过程如何受同形词的语音状态(同形词有一种发音和两种发音)的调节;以及左额下回(LIFG,包括布洛卡区)在这些过程中的参与情况。为此,实验 1 利用两类希伯来语同音词进行语境验证任务:同音词(如 bank)和异音词(如 tear)。在该任务中,受试者阅读的句子要么以同音词(如 bank)结尾,要么以无歧义词(如 shore)结尾。这些句子偏重于同形词的从属意义(如渔夫坐在岸边/岸上),并紧接着一个与同形词主要意义相关的目标词(如金钱)。被试被要求判断目标词是否与句子的整体意义相关。两类同形词都出现了模糊效应,这反映了无关主语意义的干扰。然而,这种模糊效应在异音同形词中比在同音同形词中更大,表明异音同形词的主导意义更难被抑制。实验 2 与上述实验相同,只是在实验过程中对 LIFG(包括布洛卡区)进行了经颅直流电刺激(tDCS)。我们发现,刺激 LIFG 可以消除歧义效应,但仅限于异音同形词。总之,这些发现突出了选择抑制过程在语音和语义水平上的区别,以及 LIFG 在这些过程的语音水平上的参与。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Brain and Cognition
Brain and Cognition 医学-神经科学
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
46
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Brain and Cognition is a forum for the integration of the neurosciences and cognitive sciences. B&C publishes peer-reviewed research articles, theoretical papers, case histories that address important theoretical issues, and historical articles into the interaction between cognitive function and brain processes. The focus is on rigorous studies of an empirical or theoretical nature and which make an original contribution to our knowledge about the involvement of the nervous system in cognition. Coverage includes, but is not limited to memory, learning, emotion, perception, movement, music or praxis in relationship to brain structure or function. Published articles will typically address issues relating some aspect of cognitive function to its neurological substrates with clear theoretical import, formulating new hypotheses or refuting previously established hypotheses. Clinical papers are welcome if they raise issues of theoretical importance or concern and shed light on the interaction between brain function and cognitive function. We welcome review articles that clearly contribute a new perspective or integration, beyond summarizing the literature in the field; authors of review articles should make explicit where the contribution lies. We also welcome proposals for special issues on aspects of the relation between cognition and the structure and function of the nervous system. Such proposals can be made directly to the Editor-in-Chief from individuals interested in being guest editors for such collections.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信