Sensorimotor semantics on the spot: brain activity dissociates between conceptual categories within 150 ms

Abstract

Although semantic processing has traditionally been associated with brain responses maximal at 350–400 ms, recent studies reported that words of different semantic types elicit topographically distinct brain responses substantially earlier, at 100–200 ms. These earlier responses have, however, been achieved using insufficiently precise source localisation techniques, therefore casting doubt on reported differences in brain generators. Here, we used high-density MEG-EEG recordings in combination with individual MRI images and state-of-the-art source reconstruction techniques to compare localised early activations elicited by words from different semantic categories in different cortical areas. Reliable neurophysiological word-category dissociations emerged bilaterally at ~ 150 ms, at which point action-related words most strongly activated frontocentral motor areas and visual object-words occipitotemporal cortex. These data now show that different cortical areas are activated rapidly by words with different meanings and that aspects of their category-specific semantics is reflected by dissociating neurophysiological sources in motor and visual brain systems.

Visual and Motor Features of the Meanings of Action Verbs: A Cognitive Neuroscience Perspective

“…With regard to action verbs, Pulvermüller and colleagues conducted a series of ERP experiments that used source localization techniques to identify the neuronal generators of signals elicited by verbs encoding different body-part-specific categories of actions, and found that within the time window of 150-250 ms, verbs for leg/foot actions engaged dorsal motor-related areas, verbs for arm/hand actions engaged lateral motor-related areas, and verbs for mouth actions engaged ventral motor-related areas (Pulvermüller et al 2001;. Moreover, similar results were obtained in an MEG study in which subjects passively heard action verbs while their attention was focused on a silent video film, thereby supporting the view that the activation of somatotopically mapped motor regions is a fast and fairly automatic process (Pulvermüller et al 2005b; see also Shtyrov et al 2004;Moseley et al 2013). Additional evidence for this view comes from an ERP study by Boulenger et al (2008) which found that when verbs for arm/hand actions were presented to subjects subliminally, they not only modulated the "readiness potential" (an index of motor preparation) associated with subsequent reaching movements but also affected the kinematics of those movements.…”

Are the motor features of verb meanings represented in the precentral motor cortices? Yes, but within the context of a flexible, multilevel architecture for conceptual knowledge

“…Furthermore, in an electrophysiological study that involved subliminal presentation of verbs for arm/hand actions, Boulenger et al (2008b) found that the stimuli modulated the readiness potential (an index of motor preparation) associated with subsequent reaching movements, and also influenced the kinematics of those movements. In addition, several investigations have employed magnetoencephalography to demonstrate that action verbs engage body-part-congruent precentral motor areas with remarkable speed, in some cases as soon as 100 ms after the words can be uniquely identified (Shtyrov et al, 2014; see also Pulvermüller et al, 2005b;Moseley et al, 2013;Klepp et al, 2014; for a critique see Papeo & Caramazza, 2014). Taken together, these findings show that action verbs can trigger somatotopic frontal activity in an apparently automatic manner, without the need for deep semantic processing.…”

What can autism teach us about the role of sensorimotor systems in higher cognition? New clues from studies on language, action semantics, and abstract emotional concept processing

“…First, although task conditions may suppress it, motor system activation whilst processing action-related stimuli is manifest even if participants do not actively attend to language input (Grisoni et al, 2016;Moseley, Pulvermü ller, & Shtyrov, 2013;Pulvermü ller, Shtyrov, et al, 2005;Shtyrov et al, 2004Shtyrov et al, , 2014Trumpp, Traub, & Kiefer, 2013;Trumpp, Traub, Pulvermü ller, & Kiefer, 2014). Second, motor activation during processing of action language is flexible, following the pattern expected for semantic mechanisms (for discussion, see .…”