Semantic interference and its control: A functional neuroimaging and connectivity study

Abstract

During picture naming, the ease with which humans generate words is dependent upon the context in which they are named. For instances, naming previously presented items results in facilitation. Instead, naming a picture semantically related to previous items displays persistent interference effects (i.e., cumulative semantic interference, CSI). The neural correlates of CSI are still unclear and it is a matter of debate whether semantic control, or cognitive control more in general, is necessary for the resolution of CSI. We carried out an event-related fMRI experiment to assess the neural underpinnings of the CSI effect and the involvement and nature of semantic control. Both left inferior frontal gyrus (LIFG) and the left caudate nucleus (LCN) showed a linear increase of BOLD response positively associated with the consecutive number of presentations of semantically related pictures independently of task-load. The generalized psychophysiological interaction analysis showed that LIFG demonstrated a quantitative neural connectivity difference with the left supramarginal and angular gyri for increases of task-load and with the fusiform gyri for linear CSI increases. Furthermore, seed-to-voxel functional connectivity showed that LIFG activity coupled with different regions involved in cognitive control and lexicosemantic processing when semantic interference was elicited to a minimum or maximum degree. Our results are consistent with the lexical-competitive nature of the CSI effect, and we provide novel evidence that semantic control lies upon a more general cognitive control network (i.e., LIFG and LCN) responsible for resolving interference between competing semantically related items through connectivity with different brain areas in order to guarantee the correct response. Hum Brain Mapp 37:4179-4196, 2016. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Facilitation and interference in naming: A consequence of the same learning process?

“…Blocked-cyclic and continuous naming tasks are used often interchangeably to draw inferences about the nature of semantic interference effects in naming and the processes that underlie speech production in general (Blocked Cyclic Naming: e.g., Belke, 2008, 2013; Damian & Als, 2005; de Zubicaray et al, 2014; Meinzer et al, 2016; Navarrete, Mahon, Lorenzoni, & Peressotti, 2016; Schnur et al, 2006, 2009; Continuous Naming: e.g., Belke, 2013; Canini et al, 2016; Howard et al, 2006; Navarrete et al, 2010; Ries et al, 2015; Rose & Abdel Rahman, 2016a, b; Schnur, 2014). While previous research has discussed the extent to which these two tasks may or may not reflect the same processes (Belke & Stielow, 2013), to our knowledge, this is the first study which provides a direct empirical comparison of semantic interference effects across these two tasks.…”

“…However, all priming effects are not facilitatory, as naming pictures primed by semantically related items results in longer naming latencies (e.g., Brown, 1981). This semantic interference effect is thought to reflect the same long-lasting learning experience that facilitates naming (Oppenheim et al, 2010), since interference occurs regardless of whether semantically related pictures are presented consecutively (blocked/blocked cyclic naming; Abdel Rahman & Melinger, 2007, 2010; Belke, 2008; Belke, Meyer, & Damian, 2005; Damian & Als, 2005; Damian, Vigliocco, & Levelt, 2001; de Zubicaray, Johnson, Howard, & McMahon, 2014; Kroll & Stewart, 1994; Maess, Friederici, Damian, Meyer, & Levelt, 2002; Meinzer, Yetim, McMahon, & de Zubicaray, 2016; Navarrete, Del Prato, & Mahon, 2012; Schnur, Schwartz, Brecher, & Hodgson, 2006; Vigliocco, Lauer, Damian, & Levelt, 2002) or non-consecutively, with anywhere from two to eight intervening semantically unrelated items (i.e., continuous naming; e.g., Belke, 2013; Canini et al, 2016; Howard, Nickels, Coltheart, & Cole-Virtue, 2006; Navarrete, Mahon, & Caramazza, 2010; Runnqvist, Strijkers, Alario, & Costa, 2012; Schnur, 2014). The aim of this study was to test the assumptions of Oppenheim et al’s (2010) computational model of language production (henceforth, Dark Side Model) which implements both positive and negative effects of the “learning experience” in the same way when naming and successfully simulates naming performance in blocked cyclic and continuous naming.…”

Diagnostic and Prognostic Role of Semantic Processing in Preclinical Alzheimer’s Disease

“…Semantic control too, however, is sustained by a widespread set of anterior and posterior regions [23]. Arguably, this extensive anatomical involvement may be due to the diverse nature of the control processing, that may occur, for instance, at a lower computation level during the feature extraction phase [24] or higher up in the sequence of computations, when, for instance, semantic interference is addressed [25]. Different regions, then, may show some degree of specificity based on certain modalities (e.g., sensory, motor, or emotional), while the involvement of other areas spans across multiple modalities [26].…”

Evidence of semantic processing impairments in behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia and Parkinson's disease

“…Indeed, a functional imaging study by Canini et al . [70 ▪▪ ] implicates both the LIFG and basal ganglia in semantic control processes, showing increased activity of the LIFG and left caudate nucleus with cumulative semantic interference, the phenomenon of increasing naming latency after the presentation of categorically related/competitive items. This contribution of both the LIFG and basal ganglia in semantic selection processes is supported by diffusion tensor imaging studies, which demonstrate white matter connections between the two regions [71,72].…”