Cerebral hemispheric mechanisms in the retrieval of ambiguous word meanings

Burgess, Curt; Simpson, Greg B.

doi:10.1016/0093-934x(88)90056-9

Cited by 379 publications

(349 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

287

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…[4,16,17,41]). Furthermore, Bie- 6 Note that scalp distribution effects are independent of the laterality effects as a function of hemifield of presentation that are of primary theoretical interest here. Regardless of presentation location, N400 effects tend to be seen most prominently over medial central scalp locations and are generally slightly larger over right than left hemisphere sites.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Overall, then, the distribution of the N400 effect was typical for word by word sentential reading: largest central-posteriorly and bigger over the right than the left side of the head 6 (e.g. [39]).…”

Section: Comparison Of the N300 And N400 Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This has led to the hypothesis that meaning activation in the left hemisphere is biased toward close lexical-semantic relationships while meaning activation in the right hemisphere is broader in scope. Others have suggested that this difference in scope arises because the right hemisphere activates semantic information more slowly than the left and maintains activation over longer time periods [5,6,34]. Results from studies using phrases or sentences instead of word pairs have led to the additional suggestion that the left hemisphere makes much greater use of message-level context information.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Picture the difference: electrophysiological investigations of picture processing in the two cerebral hemispheres

2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The nature of semantic memory and the role of the two cerebral hemispheres in meaning processing were examined using event-related brain potentials (ERPs) elicited by pictures in sentences. Participants read sentence pairs ending with the lateralized presentation of three target types: (1) expected pictures, (2) unexpected pictures from the expected semantic category, and (3) unexpected pictures from an unexpected category. ERPs to contextually unexpected pictures were more negative 350-500 ms (larger N400s) than those to expected pictures in both visual fields. However, while N400s to the two types of unexpected items did not differ with left visual field presentations, they were smaller to the unexpected items from the expected category with right visual field presentations. This pattern, previously observed to words [Brain Language 62 (1998) 149], suggests general differences in how the two hemispheres use context on-line. Other aspects of the N400 response-and effects on earlier ERP components-reveal differences between pictures and words, suggesting that semantic memory access is not modality-independent. The P2 component varied with ending type for right but not left visual field presentations, suggesting that the left hemisphere may use contextual information to prepare for the visual analysis of upcoming stimuli. Furthermore, there was clear evidence for an earlier negativity ("N300"), which varied with ending type but, unlike the N400, was unaffected by visual field of presentation. Overall, the results support our hypothesis that the left hemisphere actively uses top-down information to preactivate perceptual and semantic features of upcoming stimuli, while the right hemisphere adopts a "wait and see" integrative approach.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Comparison Of the N300 And N400 Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Picture the difference: electrophysiological investigations of picture processing in the two cerebral hemispheres

2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Milberg et al (1987) used a single ISI of 500 ms, making it difficult to dissociate automatic and controlled aspects of lexical processing. The ability to track the time course of lexical ambiguity processing in terms of rapid automatic processes and slower controlled processes is important in the present context, given that the left hemisphere appears to make different contributions to lexical ambiguity processing across time and in both automatic and attentional component processes (Burgess & Simpson, 1988). Hagoort (1993) was able to dissociate automatic and controlled processing by using multiple interstimulus intervals, demonstrating similar deficits in lexical ambiguity processing following left-hemisphere lesions, regardless of aphasia type or lesion site in several instances.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These findings have been primarily gleaned from studies using divided visual field tasks in normals rather than individuals with lateralized lesions. Burgess and Simpson (1988) provided the first evidence of hemispheric differences in lexical ambiguity processing using a divided visual field task for ambiguities presented in isolation to normals. When presented to the left hemisphere, multiple meaning activation occurred rapidly, followed by selective facilitation of the dominant meaning and suppression of the subordinate meaning.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Hemispheric Contributions to Lexical Ambiguity Resolution: Evidence from Individuals with Complex Language Impairment Following Left-Hemisphere Lesions

2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nine individuals with complex language deficits following left-hemisphere cortical lesions and a matched control group (n ϭ 9) performed speeded lexical decisions on the third word of auditory word triplets containing a lexical ambiguity. The critical conditions were concordant (e.g., coin-bank-money), discordant (e.g., river-bank-money), neutral (e.g., day-bankmoney), and unrelated (e.g., river-day-money). Triplets were presented with an interstimulus interval (ISI) of 100 and 1250 ms. Overall, the left-hemisphere-damaged subjects appeared able to exhaustively access meanings for lexical ambiguities rapidly, but were unable to reduce the level of activation for contextually inappropriate meanings at both short and long ISIs, unlike control subjects. These findings are consistent with a disruption of the proposed role of the left hemisphere in selecting and suppressing meanings via contextual integration and a sparing of the right-hemisphere mechanisms responsible for maintaining alternative meanings. The study of lexical ambiguity processing in normals and individuals with unilateral lesions can provide insights into how the cerebral hemispheres make unique and possibly complementary contributions to language processing. With regard to language in general, it has been postulated that the right hemisphere coarsely codes a broad selection of semantic information, whereas the left hemisphere is involved in a finer processing of strongly related information possibly based on intentional selection and integration operations (Beeman & Chiarello, 1998). Other hemispheric differences documented in normals include the time course of semantic activation, the form of attentional/controlled processing conducted in each hemisphere, and differential sensitivity to certain forms of linguistic information (Collins, 1999;Federmeier & Kutas, 1999;Koivisto, 1999).These hemispheric processing capacities have been revealed, in part, through the study of lexical ambiguity. The structure of lexical ambiguities has provided a critical platform for investigating the functional architecture of the language processing system; specifically, speaking to the issue of whether lexical processing is modular We thank two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this article.

show abstract

Rumination as a Function of Goal Progress, Stop Rules, and Cerebral Lateralization

Martin

Shrira

Startup

2003

Depressive Rumination

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cerebral hemispheric mechanisms in the retrieval of ambiguous word meanings

Cited by 379 publications

References 47 publications

Picture the difference: electrophysiological investigations of picture processing in the two cerebral hemispheres

Picture the difference: electrophysiological investigations of picture processing in the two cerebral hemispheres

Hemispheric Contributions to Lexical Ambiguity Resolution: Evidence from Individuals with Complex Language Impairment Following Left-Hemisphere Lesions

Rumination as a Function of Goal Progress, Stop Rules, and Cerebral Lateralization

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About