“This is Your Brain on Rhetoric”: Research Directions for Neurorhetorics

Jack, Jordynn; Appelbaum, Lawrence G.

doi:10.1080/02773945.2010.516303

Cited by 39 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 58 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This scientific discipline is attracting the attention of professionals from diverse fields. In this convergence of interests it highlights the development of procedures that aim to reveal the feelings of the people through non-invasive monitoring physiological signals when they face persuasion [15][16][17][18][19].…”

Section: Neurosciencementioning

confidence: 99%

How to Measure Rhetorical Impact of Teaching and their Levels of Persuasion: A Neuro-rhetoric Approach

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper explore the question about how persuasive is a person, a professor in our interest, depending on his/her rhetoric. Since persuasion is an act for amending the mind, a model to describe this intellectual entity in students consists of seven categories of elements in it: Quality, Quantity, Space, Time, Causality, Purpose and Law. According to the emphasis that the persuader places in each category of mental elements, he/she is classified in a rhetorical manner. The effect over the system of beliefs of a student caused by each rhetoric manner will be different depending on the way the new paradigm confront older or misunderstood previous classifications, organizations, and conceptualizations. Since the processing of a discourse occur mentally, not necessarily expressed by notorious disturbances in the behavior, we explore the way to measure the attentional impact of two lecturer: (i) a human being; and (ii) a computer machine, on the EEG activity of three listeners. We extracted the upper 25 % of EEG signal intensity for the whole frequency 0.1-64 Hz range, to proceed to analyze the graphical data extracted from the time/frequency/intensity EEG spectrograms. Additional and supplementary on-field results indicate that teachers who prefer affect Causalities, Purposes and Laws; are the most persuasive.

show abstract

Section: Neurosciencementioning

confidence: 99%

How to Measure Rhetorical Impact of Teaching and their Levels of Persuasion: A Neuro-rhetoric Approach

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Historical and rhetorical factors likely shape the different roles that conceptual and anatomical terms play within the cognitive neuroscience literature (Mays & Jung, 2012;Jack & Appelbaum, 2010). The semantic organization of psychological concepts builds on more than one hundred years of academic history, which in turn grew out of the ancient and intuitive interest in how our minds work.…”

Section: Positive Structure: Conceptual Hubs and Anatomical Branchesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mapping the Semantic Structure of Cognitive Neuroscience

Beam

Appelbaum

Jack

et al. 2014

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract■ Cognitive neuroscience, as a discipline, links the biological systems studied by neuroscience to the processing constructs studied by psychology. By mapping these relations throughout the literature of cognitive neuroscience, we visualize the semantic structure of the discipline and point to directions for future research that will advance its integrative goal. For this purpose, network text analyses were applied to an exhaustive corpus of abstracts collected from five major journals over a 30-month period, including every study that used fMRI to investigate psychological processes. From this, we generate network maps that illustrate the relationships among psychological and anatomical terms, along with centrality statistics that guide inferences about network structure. Three terms-prefrontal cortex, amygdala, and anterior cingulate cortex-dominate the network structure with their high frequency in the literature and the density of their connections with other neuroanatomical terms. From network statistics, we identify terms that are understudied compared with their importance in the network (e.g., insula and thalamus), are underspecified in the language of the discipline (e.g., terms associated with executive function), or are imperfectly integrated with other concepts (e.g., subdisciplines like decision neuroscience that are disconnected from the main network). Taking these results as the basis for prescriptive recommendations, we conclude that semantic analyses provide useful guidance for cognitive neuroscience as a discipline, both by illustrating systematic biases in the conduct and presentation of research and by identifying directions that may be most productive for future research. ■

show abstract

“…2 Scientizing rhetoric in this way forefronts foundationalist commitments, making the empirical strength of neuroscientific claims the bedrock on which we accept or reject rhetorical claims. Thus alongside such work come appeals for caution, for greater understanding and scrutiny of the neuroscientific work one brings to rhetoric, calls for rhetoricians to hold themselves responsible for not only understanding the neuroscientific claim, but also the processes by which it is established and/or bids for increasing collaboration between rhetoricians and neuroscientists, thus promoting rigor and guarding against the careless use of science (Rose, 1988;Brueggemann, 1989;Jack and Appelbaum, 2010;Mays and Jung, 2012, 47;Gruber et al, 2011).…”

Section: Rhetorical Epistomologies and Neurorhetorics Thus Farmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Neurorhetoric of Incongruity

Gibbons

2018

Poroi

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“This is Your Brain on Rhetoric”: Research Directions for Neurorhetorics

Cited by 39 publications

References 58 publications

How to Measure Rhetorical Impact of Teaching and their Levels of Persuasion: A Neuro-rhetoric Approach

How to Measure Rhetorical Impact of Teaching and their Levels of Persuasion: A Neuro-rhetoric Approach

Mapping the Semantic Structure of Cognitive Neuroscience

A Neurorhetoric of Incongruity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About