Unconscious Automatic Brain Activation of Acoustic and Action-related Conceptual Features during Masked Repetition Priming

Abstract

Classical theories of semantic memory assume that concepts are represented in a unitary amodal memory system. In challenging this classical view, pure or hybrid modality-specific theories propose that conceptual representations are grounded in the sensory-motor brain areas, which typically process sensory and action-related information. Although neuroimaging studies provided evidence for a functional-anatomical link between conceptual processing of sensory or action-related features and the sensory-motor brain systems, it has been argued that aspects of such sensory-motor activation may not directly reflect conceptual processing but rather strategic imagery or postconceptual elaboration. In the present ERP study, we investigated masked effects of acoustic and action-related conceptual features to probe unconscious automatic conceptual processing in isolation. Subliminal feature-specific ERP effects at frontocentral electrodes were observed, which differed with regard to polarity, topography, and underlying brain electrical sources in congruency with earlier findings under conscious viewing conditions. These findings suggest that conceptual acoustic and action representations can also be unconsciously accessed, thereby excluding any postconceptual strategic processes. This study therefore further substantiates a grounding of conceptual and semantic processing in action and perception.

Feature-Specific Event-Related Potential Effects to Action- and Sound-Related Verbs during Visual Word Recognition

“…These differences compared to the study in nouns may reflect interindividual variation in brain anatomy of the different samples or the use of material from different lexical classes (see also the General Discussion section). For each scalp region, repeated-measures analyses of variance (ANOVA) were performed on mean voltages within three time windows: 180–280, 280–380, and 380–480 ms similar to earlier studies (Kiefer et al, 2008; Trumpp et al, 2013b, 2014). In a first step, the analyses of variance (ANOVAs) included the factors scalp region (centro-parietal, fronto-central), feature type (sound, action, control words), hemisphere (left, right), and electrode site.…”

“…Using ERP recordings, the present work aimed at assessing whether feature-specific ERP differences between action and sound concepts, as previously observed in nouns (Trumpp et al, 2013b, 2014), can be found within the word class of verbs. Furthermore, as effector-specific activation in action verbs has not always been replicated (Postle et al, 2008; Arévalo et al, 2012) the assessment of category effects across feature types such as action vs. sound would be a promising novel approach to test grounded cognition theories in the domain of verbs.…”

“…Priming sound nouns reduced the negative fronto-central ERP shift whereas priming action nouns attenuated the positive fronto-central ERP shift. Source analyses for these feature-specific ERP priming effects suggested generators within and close to frontal and parietal motor areas for action words, and auditory association areas in temporal cortex for sound words (Trumpp et al, 2013b, 2014). …”

“…Several event-related potential (ERP) studies tracked the time course of semantic noun processing and compared ERP activity related to action-related vs. sound-related words: Action-related nouns elicited relatively more positive ERPs at fronto-central electrodes whereas sound-related nouns were associated with more negative ERPs over this scalp region (Kiefer et al, 2008; Trumpp et al, 2013b, 2014). These ERP effects emerged at about 200 ms suggesting that they reflect early access to conceptual feature rather than late post-conceptual imagery.…”

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 .…”