Semantic and associative priming in the cerebral hemispheres: Some words do, some words don't … sometimes, some places

Chiarello, Christine; Burgess, Curt; Richards, Lorie; Pollock, Alma

doi:10.1016/0093-934x(90)90103-n

Cited by 332 publications

(263 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

237

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…hamburger and fries), which may be less similar at a visual level. 10 In this study and in our previous word study we showed that the right hemisphere's use of sentence context information does not make it more prepared to process the conceptual features of the within category violations than of the between category violations, while the left hemisphere's strategy does. In this study, we also showed that only the left hemisphere's strategy facilitates the extraction of basic visual feature information (indexed as changes in P2 amplitude) from the more expected pictures.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 41%

“…DOG-CAT) is equivalent in the two hemispheres, priming of more distantly-related items (e.g. DOG-GOAT) seems to be restricted to the right hemisphere [8,10,12]. 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.…”

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

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: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 41%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Existing theories posit that (i) comprehend-ers activate many potential inferences but incorporate few into the representation of the text, usually after coherence breaks (Bramucci et al, 1995;Calvo & Castillo, 1996;Keefe & McDaniel, 1993); and (ii) when people comprehend text, the RH weakly activates large semantic fields, whereas the LH strongly activates small semantic fields (Beeman, 1993Beeman et al, 1994;also, Burgess & Simpson, 1988;Chiarello et al, 1990;Kiefer, Weisbrod, Kern, Maier, & Spitzer, 1998;Nakagawa, 1991;Rodel, Cook, Regard, & Landis, 1992;Titone, 1998). We integrate these theories to propose a five-step model for drawing inferences based on parallel but interactive processing in the RH and LH.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The RH appears to maintain activation of distant semantic relations of words (Beeman et al, 1994;Chiarello, Burgess, Richards, & Pollock, 1990;Nakagawa, 1991) or multiple interpretations of ambiguous words (Burgess & Simpson, 1988), whereas the LH appears to activate close associates and a single interpretation.…”

Section: Rh Coarse Semantic Codingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Right and Left Hemisphere Cooperation for Drawing Predictive and Coherence Inferences during Normal Story Comprehension

Beeman¹,

Bowden²,

2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In three experiments, healthy young participants listened to stories promoting inferences and named inference-related test words presented to the right visual field-Left Hemisphere (rvf-LH) or to the left visual field-Right Hemisphere (lvf-RH). Participants showed priming for predictive inferences only for target words presented to the lvf-RH; in contrast, they showed priming for coherence inferences only for target words presented to the rvf-LH. These results, plus the fact that patients with RH brain damage have difficulty drawing coherence inferences and do not show inference-related priming, suggest that information capable of supporting predictive inferences is more likely to be initially activated in the RH than the LH, but following coherence breaks these concepts (now coherence inferences) are completed in the LH. These results are consistent with the theory that the RH engages in relatively coarse semantic coding, which aids full comprehension of discourse.When people comprehend stories, they often make inferences -they assume that some events occurred in the stories, even though those events were not explicitly described. Consider what happens when people read or hear the premise that "The shuttle sat on the ground in the distance, waiting for the signal to be given." If they later read or hear a sentence with a coherence break, that is a sentence that interrupts the logical chain of a story, such as "After a huge roar and a bright flash, the shuttle disappeared into space leaving clouds of smoke in its wake," most people infer that the shuttle was launched. As established decades ago, once comprehenders make inferences, they include these inferences when recalling stories (Glenn, 1978;Paris & Lindauer, 1976;Baggett, 1975), and they have a difficult time distinguishing inferred information from information explicitly stated (Johnson, Bransford, & Solomon, 1973). This suggests that normal comprehenders incorporate some inferences into their representation of the discourse. HHS Public Access Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptAuthor Manuscript Author ManuscriptSome RH-damaged (RHD) patients have difficulty drawing inferences, suggesting that the right hemisphere (RH) may play an important role when comprehenders draw such inferences (Beeman, 1993;Brownell, Potter, Bihrle, & Gardner, 1986). The following experiments explore the idea that concepts necessary for supporting inferences are more likely to be initially activated in the RH than in the LH and that at the coherence break inferences are more likely to be selected-activated strongly enough to reach awareness, to be processed further, or to be output, in the sense proposed by Allport (1987) -in the LH for incorporation into the discourse representation (Beeman, 1993). PREDICTIVE AND COHERENCE INFERENCESIn principle, comprehenders could draw several types of inferences. Comprehenders could make inferences to embellish or elaborate on a story. They could draw inferences to predict upcoming consequences. For example, as soon as people hear tha...

show abstract

“…Or, ce phénomène n'apparaît pas lorsque les stimulus sont uniquement des associés (c'est-à-dire des mots à co-occurrence contextuelle ne partageant pas de caractéristiques sémantiques ; par exemple, policier-prison [6]). Pour mieux comprendre cette différence, Chiarello et ses collaborateurs [7] ont entrepris une étude comparant différents types de relations entre l'amorce et la cible. Ces auteurs rapportent des effets d'amorçage qui ne témoignent d'aucune asymétrie fonctionnelle lorsque le lien présent dans un couple amorce-cible contient un double rapport : associatif et catégoriel (mots à co-occurrence contextuelle et appartenant à la même catégorie sémantique ; par exemple, infirmière-docteur).…”

Section: Revuesunclassified

Sémantique et hémisphère droit

Kahlaoui

Joanette

2008

Med Sci (Paris)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Le cerveau est incontestablement l'organe le plus sophistiqué au monde. Il est constitué de deux masses distinctes sensiblement symétriques, les hémisphères cérébraux. Leur symétrie globale avait conduit à penser dans un premier temps qu'ils étaient équivalents sur le plan fonctionnel jusqu'aux premières études de neuropsychologie, réalisées dans la seconde moitié du XIX e siècle, qui ont permis de proposer une anatomie fonctionnelle du langage située principalement dans l'hémisphère gauche (HG). Bien qu'aujourd'hui encore on estime que le langage est l'une des fonctions supérieures les plus latéralisées, de nombreux auteurs s'accordent à dire que l'hémisphère droit (HD) est loin d'être muet en ce qui concerne le langage, en particulier le traitement sémantique des mots. Aborder la question de la sémantique des mots, c'est aborder la question de la mémoire sémantique. Celle-ci est communément définie comme la connaissance des choses du monde et de leurs interrelations. Indissociable de la mémoire à long terme, elle fait référence à la mémoire des mots, des idées, des concepts et s'avère indispensable pour toute activité cognitive s'exerçant sur du matériel ayant du sens. Pour appréhender l'organisation des connaissances stockées en mémoire sémantique, le paradigme d'amorçage sémantique est souvent utilisé (Figure 1). Classiquement, un mot cible, par exemple infirmière, est traité plus rapidement lorsqu'il est précédé par un mot amorce qui lui est sémantiquement lié, comme docteur, que lorsque le mot amorce est sémantiquement non lié, comme beurre, ceci grâce à un accès facilité à sa représentation en mémoire. Cette facilitation ou « effet d'amorçage » peut affecter différemment chacun des hémisphères cérébraux en fonction de la nature du lien pouvant exister entre l'amorce et la cible [1] et/ou du décours temporel du traitement de l'information [2,3]. Depuis ces dernières années, le nombre d'études réalisées au moyen du paradigme d'amorçage séman-tique et dévolues aux habiletés sémantiques de l'HD ne cesse de croître. Cet article a pour objectif de résumer les connaissances actuelles relatives à la contribution spécifique de l'HD à la sémantique des mots. L'emphase sera mise sur les données issues des approches comportementales, cliniques, et ainsi que des lectures tirées de la neuroimagerie cérébrale.Approche comportementale À l'heure actuelle, la technique la plus couramment utilisée pour appréhender la latéralisation cérébrale est la technique tachistoscopique en champ visuel divisé [4] (Figure 2). Cette technique consiste à présenter brièvement des stimulus dans le champ visuel droit (CVD) ou le champ visuel gauche (CVG). En raison de la décussation des voies visuelles, les stimulus présentés d'un côté du point central sont projetés directement dans l'hémisphère controlatéral. Ainsi, les stimulus présentés dans le CVD sont adressés prioritairement à l'HG tandis que les stimulus présentés dans le CVG sont adressés prioritairement à l'HD. Le postulat de base est que la performance du sujet (mesurée en fonction...

show abstract

Semantic and associative priming in the cerebral hemispheres: Some words do, some words don't … sometimes, some places

Cited by 332 publications

References 28 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

Right and Left Hemisphere Cooperation for Drawing Predictive and Coherence Inferences during Normal Story Comprehension

Sémantique et hémisphère droit

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About