Distinction between the literal and intended meanings of sentences: A functional magnetic resonance imaging study of metaphor and sarcasm

Uchiyama, Hitoshi; Saito, Daisuke N.; Tanabe, Hiroki C.; Harada, Tokiko; Seki, Atsushi; Ohno, Kousaku; Koeda, Tatsuya; Sadato, Norihiro

doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2011.01.004

Cited by 102 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Sixty-six foci from 9 studies contributed to this analysis (Ahrens et al, 2007;Chen et al, 2008;Desai et al, 2011;Lee and Dapretto, 2006;Mashal et al, 2007;Mejía-Constaín et al, 2010;Schmidt and Seger, 2009;Stringaris et al, 2007;Uchiyama et al, 2012). Eight clusters of activation were detected, all located in the LH ( …”

Section: Meta-analysis 2: Salient Metaphoric Stimuli Versus Literal Smentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Stringaris et al (2007) suggested a role of the left thalamus in identifying attributive categories and establishing semantic associations during metaphor comprehension (Stringaris et al, 2007). Uchiyama et al (2012) suggested a role of the thalamus in ambiguity resolution during comprehension of non-literal stimuli. Finally, increased cognitive demands may induce increased thalamic BOLD response (Saalmann and Kastner, 2011) so that activation could additionally reflect increased cognitive demand along with metaphor denotation.…”

Section: Brain Regions For Non-literal Languagementioning

confidence: 98%

“…Eleven studies investigated different types of non-literal language. Eviatar and Just (2006), Wakusawa et al (2007), and Uchiyama et al (2012) compared brain activation during comprehension of ironic remarks with brain activation for metaphoric stimuli.…”

Section: Authorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Where in the brain is nonliteral language? A coordinate-based meta-analysis of functional magnetic resonance imaging studies

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Meta-analysis 2: Salient Metaphoric Stimuli Versus Literal Smentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Brain Regions For Non-literal Languagementioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Where in the brain is nonliteral language? A coordinate-based meta-analysis of functional magnetic resonance imaging studies

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…As an example of the first sort, consider one recent study (Uchiyama et al, 2011). The authors developed vignettes that had ironic comments as endings, e.g.…”

Section: Processing Ironymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There are currently seven studies that employ functional neuroimaging techniques to investigate irony processing on healthy participants (Eviatar and Just, 2006;Rapp et al, 2010;Shibata et al, 2010;Uchiyama et al, 2006Uchiyama et al, , 2011Wakusawa et al, 2007;Wang et al, 2006; see Table 1 for a description and summary of the prior neuroimaging studies). Remarkably, no single study reports extensive activity in the ToM network in the way that neural ToM tasks do (cf.…”

Section: Processing Ironymentioning

confidence: 99%

Neural evidence that utterance-processing entails mentalizing: The case of irony

Spotorno¹,

Koun²,

Prado³

et al. 2012

NeuroImage

221

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The role of the right hemisphere in metaphor comprehension: A meta-analysis of functional magnetic resonance imaging studies

Yang

2012

Hum. Brain Mapp

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The role of the right hemisphere (RH) in metaphor comprehension is still controversial. Numerous neuroimaging studies have found that conventionality, sentential context, and task demand can influence the involvement of the RH in metaphor processing. The current meta-analysis used foci from 17 original functional magnetic resonance imaging studies to identify what factors modulate the involvement of the RH in metaphor processing. Activation likelihood estimation was used for quantification. We focused on the contrast of metaphorical meaning processing versus literal meaning processing and calculated the meta-analysis effects when (1) metaphorical meaning is conventional, (2) metaphorical meaning is novel, (3) metaphorical and literal meaning are presented in words, (4) metaphorical and literal meaning are presented in sentential context, (5) task is valence judgment, and (6) task is semantic relatedness judgment. The results indicated that the RH only showed significant effects in metaphor processing when the metaphorical meaning is novel, when metaphorical meaning is presented in sentential context, and when the task is semantic relatedness judgment. The effects were located in right fronto-temporal regions, including inferior frontal gyrus, middle frontal gyrus, insula, superior temporal gyrus, and middle temporal gyrus. These results suggest that conventionality, contextual complexity, and task demand can modulate the effect of figurativeness and influence the involvement of RH in metaphor comprehension. The main role of the RH in metaphor processing is related with activating broad semantic fields and integrating concepts that may have distant semantic relations, and hence provide support for the view that the RH is responsible for processing coarse semantic information in language comprehension.

show abstract

Distinction between the literal and intended meanings of sentences: A functional magnetic resonance imaging study of metaphor and sarcasm

Cited by 102 publications

References 57 publications

Where in the brain is nonliteral language? A coordinate-based meta-analysis of functional magnetic resonance imaging studies

Where in the brain is nonliteral language? A coordinate-based meta-analysis of functional magnetic resonance imaging studies

Neural evidence that utterance-processing entails mentalizing: The case of irony

The role of the right hemisphere in metaphor comprehension: A meta-analysis of functional magnetic resonance imaging studies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About