running head: neuroimaging of semantic priming in ... language... · neuroimaging of semantic...

Running Head: Neuroimaging of Semantic Priming in Schizophrenia

Title: Neuroimaging of Semantic Processing in Schizophrenia: A Parametric

Priming Approach

Authors: S. Duke Han, PhD1 & Cynthia G. Wible2

Affiliations: 1. Department of Behavioral Sciences, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL

2. Surgical Planning Laboratory, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA

Contact: S. Duke Han, PhD, Department of Behavioral Sciences, Rush University Medical

Center, Chicago, IL 60612, phone: 312-942-2893, fax: 312-942-4990, email:

[email protected]

PLEASE DO NOT QUOTE WITHOUT AUTHOR’S PERMISSION

Neuroimaging of Semantic Priming in Schizophrenia

Abstract

The use of fMRI and other neuroimaging techniques in the study of cognitive language

processes in psychiatric and non-psychiatric conditions has led at times to discrepant findings.

Many issues complicate the study of language, especially in psychiatric populations. For

example, the use of subtractive designs can produce misleading results. We propose and

advocate for a semantic priming parametric approach to the study of semantic processing using

fMRI methodology. Implications of this parametric approach are discussed in view of current

functional neuroimaging research investigating the semantic processing disturbance of

schizophrenia.

Keywords: Schizophrenia, fMRI, semantic priming, parametric

2


Introduction

Since the seminal works of German neurologist Carl Wernicke in the 1800’s, the neural

basis of language comprehension has been the focus of considerable research (see Norris and

Wise, 2000; Brown, Hagoort, and Kutas, 2000; for a review). As in the case of Wernicke, lesion

and aphasia studies have served as one of the most profitable ways to investigate the neural

substrate of language comprehension. Wernicke’s work suggested lesions of the left temporal

lobe produced an inability to comprehend and process language, although the ability to produce

language was preserved (Purves et al., 1997). Sperry’s landmark studies (e.g., 1974) with split-

brain patients dramatically affirmed the left lateralization of language processing.

Several recent lesion studies have clarified the role of the left temporal lobe in lexico-

semantic language comprehension (Graff-Radford et al., 1990; Gainotti et al., 1995; Funnell,

1995; Hodges et al., 1992; Caramazza and Berndt, 1978). Caramazza and Berndt (1978)

presented a review of aphasia studies that mostly implicate left hemisphere regions. A lesion

analysis showed that left posterior temporal/inferior parietal regions produced deficits of

comprehension at the single word level (Hart and Gordon, 1990). Hodges et al. (1992) present

multiple cases of semantic dementia with evidence implicating the left temporal lobe structures.

Graff-Radford et al. (1990) presented a case of a right-handed physician diagnosed with Pick’s

Disease, a neurodegenerative disorder, who had a “progressive difficulty with language (pg.

620)” and few other symptoms. The patient at first had difficulty learning new names of people

he would meet. His difficulty progressed such that in a follow-up assessment he was

inappropriately linking semantically related words in speech (e.g., “Jill, how is your work doing in

out office?”[pg. 621]). The authors raised the striking point that grammar structure and

punctuation is maintained in the midst of this lexico-semantic deficit. After the patient’s death,

neuropathologic findings revealed a significantly smaller left hemisphere versus the right

hemisphere, and a significantly smaller temporal pole, inferior and middle temporal gyri, anterior

3


part of the superior temporal gyrus, and insula, all in the left hemisphere. Gainotti et al. (1995)

conducted a meta-analysis of lesion case studies and revealed a consistent finding of the left

temporal lobe implicated for semantic category impairment of object nouns. They review and

present additional evidence for the hypothesis of lesions of the inferior temporal and temporal

limbic structures constituting the pathophysiology of semantic disorders specifically related to

living beings. Moreover, the authors highlight a controversy in lesion studies regarding selective

language impairments.

Even though the traditional focus has been on the left hemisphere for language and

semantic processing, several lines of evidence show that the right hemisphere does process

auditory word and semantic representations. Evidence from the study of pure word deafness

and other sources shows that speech sounds are processed bilaterally in the superior temporal

region (Hickok and Poeppel, 2007). A study using single unit recording during neurosurgical

procedures reported that both right and left hemispheres showed a similar number of units

responsive to linguistic material; the left responses tended to be multi-modal and the responses

on the right were unimodal (Ojemann et al., 2002). Category specific impairments can also be a

result of either right or left damage (e.g. Tranel et al., 1997).

Some language structure empiricists posit that there is a lexical (word) representation

that mediates between more semantic (conceptual) content and phonological (sounds) or

orthographic (visual) elements (Damasio et al., 1996; but see Caramazza, 1996; 2000 for an

opposing view). Many of these authors believe in a serial processing of language such that

information flows from an independent semantic level to an independent lexical level to the

phonological level and vice versa. These same investigators also believe that the impairments

described above could solely exist at the lexical level of processing (e.g., Miceli et al., 1988;

Caramazza and Berndt, 1978). Other investigators believe that lexical and semantic attributes

are more or less processed simultaneously, and that the impairments described above are

4


inclusive of a semantic level disruption (e.g. McCarthy and Warrington, 1985; Churchland and

Sejnowski, 1988; Warrington, 1975).

Functional Neuroimaging and Semantic Processing

While Wernicke’s subjects most effectively refuted or supported his hypotheses

posthumously (when their brains were examined), the subjects of today’s researchers can do

this in vivo through extraordinary strides in brain imaging technology and experimental designs

developed from recent advances in the understanding of neurobiological hemodynamics. Two

methods of functional brain imaging are among the most common: positron emission

tomography (PET) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Several recent imaging studies

have attempted to clarify the sites of semantic representations in the brain, and some of these

are overviewed in Table 1. In studying language using neuroimaging, activity in one condition is

usually compared to a second condition and/or to the baseline or resting state in the

experiment. Unfortunately, several language related regions of the brain are also used during

the baseline or resting state, making estimation of true language related activity difficult (see

Raichle and Snyder, 2007 for a discussion of default mode activity). In addition, many of the

studies of semantic and lexical processing employ what is known as the subtraction method

(e.g., Pugh et al., 1996). This method assumes that the specific site of activity may be

determined by subtracting the activation caused by a lower level representation or earlier stage

of processing from the activation caused by the higher order representation of interest or later,

more elaborated stage of processing. By “parceling out” the lower level representations, it is

believed that the sites remaining are specific to the higher order representation. Although some

of these studies show activation of temporal regions during semantic processing that would be

consistent with the lesion literature, the activations were often either very small (Demonet et al.,

1992; Price et al., 1997; Pugh et al., 1996) or no activation of temporal lobe regions was found

5


when the lexical condition was subtracted from the semantic condition in order to isolate

semantic processing (Petersen et al., 1988; Roskies et al., 2001; Fujamaki et al., 2000; Crosson

et al., 1999; in Pugh et al., 1996, females showed no temporal lobe activation in semantic

condition). Several of these subtraction studies did find inferior prefrontal activation that was

attributed to semantic processing. This discrepancy between neuroimaging and lesion studies

is more evident in the literature using the levels of processing task in which words are presented

in the context of either a superficial or non-semantic task (e.g. is the word printed in upper or

lower case?) versus a condition where words are presented in the context of a semantic task

(e.g. is the word a living or nonliving object?). When the superficial or non-semantic task

activation is subtracted from activation during performance of a semantic task in these studies,

they consistently do not find temporal lobe activation that is related to semantic or deep as

apposed to shallow processing; but they do consistently find LIPC activation (Buckner et al.,

2001; Otten et al., 2001; Poldrack et al., 1999; Demb et al., 1995; Kapur et all, 1994; Petersen

et al., 1988).

The rather robust implication of the inferior frontal areas in lexico-semantic imaging

studies argues for a network of concertedly working regions as the mechanism underlying

semantic language processing. One tentative explanation offered by Roskies et al. (see also

Wagner et al., 2001; Kotz et al., 2002; Copland et al., 2003; and Thompsen-Schill et al., 1997) is

that the inferior frontal areas may correspond to “control processes” and the temporal areas

may correspond to “semantic stores”. According to this hypothesis, the frontal areas would

become activated to “access, select, gate, or retrieve semantic information” widely distributed in

the temporal cortex, and their level of activation would vary according to a number of conditions,

including level of semantic ambiguity and “difficulty” of semantic task.

[INSERT TABLE 1 HERE]

6


Semantic Processing and Schizophrenia

Bleuler (1911/1950) stated, “Almost every schizophrenic who is hospitalized hears

voices ‘voices,’ occasionally or continually.” Sibersweig and Stern (1996) claim that close to

74% of schizophrenic patients ‘hear’ things inaudible to the general populace. Auditory

hallucinations are often seen as a hallmark symptom of schizophrenia, and are arguably the

most significant forms of evidence pointing to a disease-based disruption in auditory language

processing. Bleuler (1911/1950) also observed another particularly troubling phenomenon in

schizophrenic language processing, namely the inappropriate intrusions of otherwise common

associations. He and other researchers noted that the inappropriate intrusions were at times

uniform in presentation, such that, “They result in a kind of speech error, in which a word that is

strongly associated with a previous word in an utterance displaces contextually relevant parts

later in the utterance or influences the next utterance (Spitzer et al., 1994, pg. 485).” These

clinical observations were indicative of the general disruption in lexico-semantic language

processing often observed in schizophrenia so much so that according to Bleuler, the

associative disturbance characteristic of schizophrenic language was deemed one of the “4 A’s”

(autism, ambivalence, affect, and association) of schizophrenia. The 4 A’s were historically

viewed by Bleuler’s as fundamental characteristics of the schizophrenic disease. Informed by

Bleuler’s original hypothesis, many researchers have focused upon schizophrenia’s impaired

language processing using various word association paradigms (e.g., Chapman, Chapman, and

Miller, 1964). Maher (1983) suggested that the associative intrusions and derailments

characteristic of schizophrenic speech might be due to an overactive semantic priming effect.

Most semantic priming tasks build upon the simple word association paradigm by incorporating

a processing speed component as the dependent variable (see Neely, 1991, for a review). In

these tasks two words are presented (most often visually). The initial word is often referred to

7


as the cue or prime, and the subsequent word is often referred to as the target or probe (e.g.

Vinogradov, Ober, and Shenaut, 1992; Moritz et al., 2001). The time between the beginning of

the cue word and the beginning of the target word is referred to as the stimulus onset

asynchrony (SOA), the time between the end of the cue word and the beginning of the target

word is called the inter-stimulus interval (ISI), and the time between the end of the previous

target word and the next cue word is known as the inter-trial interval (ITI). These are all

illustrated in Figure 1.

[INSERT FIGURE 1 HERE]

In a priming experiment, responses to a target word are consistently accelerated following a

semantically associated cue word versus a semantically unrelated cue word, and this

phenomenon is referred to as a priming effect (Meyer and Schvaneveldt, 1971). Performance

on these tasks is thought to be a correlate of the speed of information running through human

semantic association networks (Spitzer, 1997). One of two methodological approaches is

generally typical of any semantic priming task: lexical decision or word pronunciation. For a

lexical decision task, the subject is asked to identify whether the target word is a valid English

word. For a word pronunciation task, the subject is asked to pronounce the target word.

Assuming that within normal individuals active associations quickly decay or are

inhibited (Posner and Snyder, 1975), thus preventing them from intruding into discourse, Maher

believed schizophrenic patients might have a disruption in the decay or inhibitory process (see

Kwapil et al., 1990) and thus show an aberrant spread of activation in semantic networks.

Drawing from the work of Meyer and Schvaneveldt (1971), who developed the lexical decision

task and were the first to identify the lexical priming effect among normal subjects, Maher

hypothesized that schizophrenic subjects would show an even greater priming effect.

8


Furthermore, Maher et al. proposed that this deficit reflected a failure of fast, obligatory,

automatic processing that is engaged by relatively short SOAs (Moritz et al., 2001).

A number of researchers have provided evidence in support of Maher’s hypothesis

(Manschreck et al., 1988; Spitzer et al., 1994; Kwapil et al., 1990; Baving et al., 2001; Spitzer et

al., 1993; Spitzer et al., 1993b; Weisbrod et al., 1998; Moritz et al., 2001; Moritz et al., 2001b;

Moritz et al., 2002). However, a number of researchers have also provided evidence conflicting

with Maher’s original hypothesis (Vinogradov, Ober, and Shenaut, 1992; Barch et al., 1996;

Barch et al., 1999; Henik et al., 1995; Chapin et al., 1989; Blum and Freides, 1995; Passerieux

et al., 1997). There are a number of postulated methodological reasons for the above authors’

contradictory findings, including a lack of consideration of length of illness (see Maher et al.,

1996), medication effects (see Moritz et al., 1999), and differing levels of thought disorder (see

Moritz et al., 2001).

Semantic Processing, Functional Neuroimaging, and Schizophrenia

We argue that the use of a parametric approach is preferable to the subtraction method

given that lexical representations may automatically or obligatorily activate semantic

representations, even when the task does not require it (Price et al., 1996; Poeppel, 1996;

Binder et al., 1997) and also that the activation of lexical and semantic representations may at

least partially overlap or may occur in a recursive manner. In sentence processing, it has been

shown that the semantic representation of a word is activated before the word can be uniquely

identified or before the isolation point of a word (Ven Petten et al., 1999).

If presentation of a word (lexical condition) can automatically activate semantic

information, then subtraction of a lexical condition from a semantic condition would also remove

part of the semantic activation associated with the word when a subtraction design is used.

9


One method for alleviating this difficulty is to manipulate either lexical or semantic attributes in a

parametric manner and to identify regions whose activation also varies with the manipulation.

This sort of parametric approach has been used to elucidate the regions associated with

the phonological processing of words (see Hickok and Poeppel, 2007). Okada and Hickok

(2006) used words that varied according to what they describe as neighborhood density.

Neighborhood density refers to how many similar sounding “neighbors” there are for a particular

word. High neighborhood density words have many words that sound similar to a particular

target word, and low neighborhood density words have fewer words that sound similar. The

investigators found greater activation for higher density words than lower density words in the

middle and posterior regions of the superior temporal sulcus.

Our laboratory has used this parametric approach to examine semantic processing

(Wible et al., 2006; Han et al., 2007). Since semantic relatedness between two words has been

quantified based on the work of cognitive scientists (e.g., Nelson et al., 1993), differing levels of

semantic processing can be manipulated within a task. One example of differing levels of

semantic processing is illustrated by the concept of connectivity (Nelson et al., 1993).

Connectivity refers to how many semantically associated connections exist between

semantically associated words of a particular target word. The semantic priming paradigm

offers an experimental structure that lends itself well to parametric approaches in the study of

connectivity semantics. Assuming a spreading activation model of semantic processing,

presentation of the prime and target words would result in a parallel and distributed cascading

effect of activation spreading through semantically related networks of word knowledge. Word

pairs high in connectivity would share more overlapping cortical processing space and would

therefore show less activation than word pairs low in connectivity (see Figure 2).

[INSERT FIGURE 2 HERE]

10


Using this as our theoretical rationale, we recently provided the first neuroimaging evidence to

support a breakdown in the lexical-semantic processing abilities of participants with

schizophrenia in left and right frontal and temporal lobe regions using a semantic priming

parametric approach (Han et al., 2007). Employing a three-step parametric approach to assess

lexical-semantic processing (high connectivity, low connectivity, and unrelated word pairs), we

showed that schizophrenia patients were abnormal when compared to matched controls at

processing our three-step parametric of high connectivity < low connectivity < unrelated word

pairs, and that this semantic processing abnormality was associated with language-related

clinical symptoms as indicated by the Scale for the Assessment of Positive Symptoms (SAPS;

Andreasen, 1984). More specifically, lexical-semantic abnormality in regions corresponding to

Broca’s area, the supramarginal gyrus, the posterior middle and superior temporal lobes, and

homologous regions in the right hemisphere were associated with auditory hallucinations.

Other researchers have investigated semantic processing in schizophrenia using

functional neuroimaging (fMRI, PET) techniques, though few have focused their efforts

specifically on semantic processing in schizophrenia. Kubicki et al. (2003) used visually

presented words in a levels of processing (LOP) paradigm and showed left inferior frontal

underactivation and superior temporal gyrus overactivation among schizophrenic participants.

The authors reasoned this pattern as evidence for “a disease-related disruption of a distributed

frontal temporal network.” Kuperberg et al. (2008) used sentences that varied according to

abstract or concrete and congruous or incongruous to test the hypothesis that schizophrenia

patients may not adequately recruit the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex for more demanding

semantically integrative processes. The authors found that while schizophrenia patients were

able to recruit left temporal and inferior frontal cortices in a comparable way to control

participants, they failed to show activation in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, medial frontal,

11


and parietal cortices during incongruous (relative to congruous) sentences and in the

dorsolateral prefrontal cortex to concrete (relative to abstract) sentences when compared to

control subjects. Kircher et al. (2008) presented evidence in favor of reduced left hippocampal

activity among schizophrenia patients while completing a semantic word generation task.

In conclusion, we advocate for the use of a semantic priming parametric approach to

study semantic processing in schizophrenia. Future research is needed to determine the

relevance of this functional neuroimaging approach to the study of clinical symptomatology and

disease progression. Furthermore, future research is needed to compare the present approach

to more traditional subtraction method approaches.

12


References Andreasen, N.C. 1984. Scale for the Assessment of Positive Symptoms (SAPS). Iowa City: University of Iowa College of Medicine. Barch, D.M., Servan-Schreiber, D., Steingard, S., et al. 1996. Semantic priming in schizophrenia: An examination of spreading activation using word pronunciation and multiple SOAs. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 105(4), 592-601. Barch, D.M., Carter, C.S., Perlstein, W., et al. 1999. Increased stroop facilitation effects in schizophrenia are not due to increased automatic spreading of activation. Schizophrenia Research 39, 51-64. Baving, L., Wagner, M., Cohen, R., et al. 2001. Increased semantic and rep etition priming in schizophrenic patients. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 110(1), 67-75. Binder, J.R, Frost JA, Hammeke TA, et al. 1997. Human brain language areas identified by functional magnetic resonance imaging. J Neuroscience 17, 353-362. Bleuler, E. (1911/1950). Dementia praecox of the group of schizophrenias. New York: International University Press. Blum, N.A., Freides, D. 1995. Investigating thought disorder in schizophrenia with the lexical decision task. Schizophrenia Research 16, 217-224. Brown, C.M., Hagoort, P., Kutas, M. 2000. Postlexical integration processes in language comprehension: Evidence from brain-imaging research. Michael S. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The new cognitive neurosciences 881-895. Buckner, R.L., Koutstaal, W., Schacter, D.L., et al. Functional MRI evidence for a role of frontal and inferior temporal cortex in amodal components of priming. Brain 123, 620-640. Caramazza, A. 1996. The brain’s dictionary. Nature 380, 485-486. Caramazza, A., Berndt, R.S. 1978. Semantic and syntactic processes in aphasia: A review of the literature. Psychological Bulletin 85(4), 898-918. Chapin, K., Vann, L.E., Lycaki, H., et al. 1989. Investigation of the associative network in schizophrenia using the semantic priming paradigm. Schizophrenia Research 2, 355-360. Chapman, L.J., Chapman, J.P., Miller, G.A. 1964. A theory of verbal behavior in schizophrenia. B.A. Maher (Ed.), Progress in experimental personality research 135-167. Churchland, P.S., Sejnowski, T.J. 1988. Neural re presentation and neural computation. L. Nadel (Ed.), Biological computation. Copland, D.A., de Zubicaray, G.I., McMahon, K., et al. 2003. Brain activity during automatic semantic priming revealed by event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging. Neuroimage 20, 302-310.

13


Crosson, B., Rao, S.M., Woodley, S.J., et al. 1999. Mapping of Semantic, Phonological, and Orthographic Verbal Working Memory in Normal Adults with FMRI. Neuropsychology 13(2), 171-187. Damasio, H., Grabowski TJ, Tranel D, et al. 1996. A neural basis for lexical retrieval. Nature 380, 499-505. Demb JB, Desmond JE, Wagner AD, et al. 1995. Semantic encoding and retrieval in the left inferior prefrontal cortex: a functional MRI study of task difficulty and process specificity. J Neurosci 15(9), 5870-5878. Demonet, J.F., Price, C., Wise, R., et al. 1992. A PET study of cognitive strategies in normal subjects during language tasks. Influence of phonetic ambiguity and sequence processing on phoneme monitoring. Brain 117(4), 671-82. Fujimaki, N., Miyauchi, S., Putz, B., et al. 1999. Functional magnetic resonance imaging of neural activity related to orthographic, phonological, and lexico-semantic judgments of visually presented characters and words. Human Brain Mapping 8, 44-59. Funnell, E. 1995. Objects and properties: A study of the breakdown of semantic memory. Memory 3(3/4), 497-518. Gainotti, Silveri, M.C., Daniele, A., et al. 1995. Neuroanatomical correlates of category-specific semantic disorders: A critical survey. Memory 3(3/4), 247-264. Graff-Radford, Damasio, A.R., Hyman, B.T., et al. 1990. Progessive aphasia in a patient with Pick’s disease: A neuropsychological, radiologic, and anatomic study. Neurology 40, 620-626. Hagoort, P., Indefrey, P., Brown, C., et al. 1999. The neural circuitry involved in the reading of German words and pseudowords: A PET study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 11(4), 383-398. Han, S.D., Nestor, P.G., Hale-Spencer, M., et al. 2007. Functional imaging of word priming in males with chronic schizophrenia. Neuroimage 35, 273-282. Hart J, G.B. 1990. Delineation of single-word semantic comprehension deficits in aphasia, with anatomical correlation. Annals of Neurology 27, 226-231. Henik, A., Nissimov, E., Priel, B., et al. 1995. Effects of cognitive load on semantic priming in patients with schizophrenia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 104(4), 576-584. Hickok G, Poeppel D. 2007. The cortical organization of speech processing. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 8, 393-402. Hodges J.R., Patterson, K., Oxbury, S., et al. 1992. Semantic dementia: Progressive fluent aphasia with temporal lobe atrophy. Brain 115, 1783-1806.

14


Kapur S., Rose R., Liddle P.F., et al. 1994. The role of the left prefrontal cortex in verbal processing: semantic processing or willed action? Neuroreport 5(16), 2193-2196. Kircher, T., Whitney, C., Krings, T., et al. 2008. Hippocampal dysfunction during free word association in male patients with schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Research 101, 242-255. Kotz, S.A., Cappa, S.F., von Cramon, D.Y., et al. 2002. Modulation of the lexical-semantic network by auditory semantic priming: An event-related functional MRI study. Neuroimage 17, 1761-1772. Kubicki M. 2003. An fMRI study of semantic processing in men with schizophrenia. Neuroimage 20, 1923-1933. Kuperberg GR, West WC, Lakshmanan BM, et al. 2008. Functional magnetic resonance imaging reveals neuroanatomical dissociations during semantic integration in schizophrenia. Biol Psychiatry 64(5), 407-418. Kwapil, T.R., Hegley, D.C., Chapman, L.J., et al. 1990. Facilitation of word recognition by semantic priming in schizophrenia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 99(3), 215-221. Maher, B.A. (1983). A tentative theory of schizophrenic utterance. B.A. & W.B. Maher (Eds.), Progress in experimental personality research: Vol. 12. Psychopathology, 1-52. New York: Academic Press. Maher, B.A., Manschreck, T.C., Redmond, D., et al. 1996. Length of illness and the gradient from positive to negative semantic priming in schizophrenic patients. Schizophrenia Research 22, 127-132. Manschreck, T.C., Maher, B.A., Milavetz, J.J., et al. 1988. Semantic priming in thought disordered schizophrenia patients. Schizophrenia Research 1, 61-66. McCarthy, R.A., Warrington, E.K. 1985. Category specific in an agrammatic patient: The implications for normal functions. Annals of New York Academy of Sciences 280, 868-884. Menard, M.T., Kosslyn, S.M., Thompson, W.L., et al. 1996. Encoding words and pictures: A positron emission tomography study. Neuropsychologia 34(3), 185-194. Meyer, D., Schvanefelt, R. 1971. Facilitation in recognizing pairs of words: Evidence of a dependence between retrieval operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology 90, 227-234. Miceli, G., Silveri, M.C., Nocentini, U., Caramazza, A. 1988. Patterns of dissociation in comphrension and production of nouns and verbs. Aphasiology 2, 351-358. Moritz, S., Andresen, B., Domin, F., et al. 1999. Increased automatic spreading activation in healthy subjects with elevated scores in a scale assessing schizophrenic language disturbances. Psychological Medicine 29(1), 161-170.

15


Moritz, S., Mersmann, K., Kloss, M., et al. 2001. Enhanced semantic priming in thought-disordered schizophrenic patients using a word pronunciation task. Schizophrenia Research 48, 301-305. Moritz, S., Mersmann, K., Kloss, M., et al. (2001b). ‘Hyper-priming’ in thought-disordered schizophrenic patients. Psychological Medicine, 31(2), 221-229. Moritz, S., Woodward, T.S., Kuppers, D., et al. 2002. Increased automatic spreading of activation in thought-disordered schizophrenic patients. Schizophrenia Research 59, 181-186. Norris, D., Wise, R. (2000). The study of prelexical and lexical processes in comprehension: Psycholinguistics and functional neuroimaging. In Michael S. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The new cognitive neurosciences, 867-880. Nelson, D.L., Bennett, D.J., Gee, N.R., et al. 1993. Implicit memory: Effects of network size and interconnectivity on cued recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology 19(4), 747-764. Ojemann JG, Ojemann GA, Lettich E. 2002. Cortical stimulation mapping of language cortex by using a verb generation task: effects of learning and comparison to mapping based on object naming. J Neurosurg 97(1), 33-38. Okada, K., Hickok, G. 2006. Identification of lexicalphonological networks in the superior temporal sulcus using fMRI. Neuroreport 17, 1293–1296. Otten LJ, Henson RN, Rugg MD. 2001. Depth of processing effects on neural correlates of memory encoding: relationship between findings from across- and within-task comparisons. Brain 124, 399-412. Passerieux, C., Segui, J., Besche, C., et al. 1997. Heterogeneity in cognitive functioning of schizophrenic patients evaluated by a lexical decision task. Psychological Medicine 27(6), 1295-1302. Petersen, S.E., Fox, P.T., Posner, M.I., et al. 1988. Positron emission tomographic studies of the cortical anatomy of single word processing. Nature 331, 585-589. Poeppel, D. 1996. A critical review of PET studies of phonological processing. Brain and Language 55, 317-351. Poldrack RA, Wagner AD, Prull MW, et al. 1999. Functional specialization for semantic and phonological processing in the left inferior prefrontal cortex. Neuroimage 10, 15-35. Posner, M.I., Snyder, C.R.R. 1975. Attention and cognitive control. In R.L. Solso (Ed.), Information processing and cognition: The Loyola symposium, 55-85. Price, C.J., Moore, C.J., Humphreys, G.W., et al. 1997. Segregating semantic from phonological processes during reading. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 9(6), 727-733. Pugh, K.R., Shaywitz, B.A., Shaywitz, S.E., et al. 1996. Cerebral organization of component processes in reading. Brain 119(4), 1221-1238.

16


Purves, D., Augustine, G.J., Fitzpatrick, D., et al. 1997. Neuroscience 484. Riddoch, M.J., Humphreys, G.W. 1987. Visual object processing in optic aphasia: A case of semantic access agnosia. Cognitive Neuropsychology 4(2), 131-185. Roskies, A.L., Fiez, J.A., Balota, D.A., et al. 2001. Task-dependent modulation of regions in the left inferior frontal cortex during semantic processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 13(6), 829-843. Sergent, J., Zuck, E., Levesque, M., MacDonald, B. 1992. Positron emission tomography study of letter and object processing: Empirical findings and methodological considerations. Cerebral Cortex 2, 68-80. Silbersweig, D., Stern, E. 1996. Functional neuroimaging of hallucinations in schizophrenia: Toward an integration of bottom-up and top-down approaches. Molecular Psychiatry 1, 367-375. Sonty, S.P., Mesulam, M.-M., Thompson, C.K., et al. 2002. Primary progressive aphasia: PPA and the language network. Annals of Neurology 53, 35-49. Sperry, R.W. 1974. Lateral specialization in the surgically separated hemispheres. In F.O. Schmitt and F.G. Worden (Eds.), The neurosciences: Third study program, 5-19. Spitzer, M. 1997. A cognitive neuroscience view of schizophrenic thought disorder. Schizophrenia Bulletin 23, 29-50. Spitzer, M., Braun, U., Hermle, L., et al. 1993. Associative semantic network dysfunction in thought-disordered schizophrenic patients: Direct evidence from indirect semantic priming. Biological Psychiatry 34, 864-877. Spitzer, M., Braun, U., Maier, S., et al. 1993b. Indirect semantic priming in schizophrenic patients. Schizophrenia Research 11, 71-80. Spitzer, M., Weisker, I., Winter, M., et al. 1994. Semantic and phonological priming in schizophrenia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 103(3), 485-494. Suzuki, K., Sakai, K.L. 2003. An event-related fMRI study of explicit syntactic processing of normal/anomalous sentences in contrast to implicit syntactic processing. Cerebral Cortex 13, 517-526. Thompson-Schill, S.L., D’Esposito, M., Aguirre, G.K., et al. 1997. Role of the left inferior prefrontal cortex in retrieval of semantic knowledge: A reevaluation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 94, 14792-14797. Tranel D, Damasio H, Damasio AR. 1997. A neural basis for the retrieval of conceptual knowledge. Neuropsychologia 35, 1319-1327.

17


18

Van Petten C, Coulson S, Rubin S, et al. 1999. Time course of word identification and semantic integration in spoken language. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 25, 394-417. Vitevitch, M. S. Luce, P. A. 1999. Probabilistic phonotactics and neighborhood activation in spoken word recognition. J. Mem. Lang. 40, 374–408. Vinogradov, S., Ober, B.A., Shenaut, G.K. 1992. Semantic priming of word pronunciation and lexical decision in schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Research 8, 171-181. Wagner, A.D., Pare-Blagoev, E.J., Clark, J., et al. 2001. Recovering meaning: Left prefrontal cortex guides controlled semantic retrieval. Neuron, 31, 329-338. Weisbrod, M., Maier, S., Harig, S., et al. 1998. Lateralised semantic and indirect semantic priming effects in people with schizophrenia. British Journal of Psychiatry 172(2), 142-146 Wise, R., Chollet, F., Hadar, U., et al. 1991. Distribution of cortical neural networks involved in word comprehension and word retrieval. Brain 114, 1803-1817.

Figure 1

RAZOR BLADE WAVES SURF

SOA SOA

CUE TARGET CUE TARGET

ISI ITI ISI


20

Figure 2 (Color)


21

Figure 2 (black and white)


22

Captions Figure 1: Semantic Priming Structure and Terms. SOA=stimulus onset asynchrony. ISI=inter-stimulus interval. ITI=inter-trial interval. Figure 2: Whole-brain activation patterns to word pairs varying by connectivity (high, low, unrelated) for 13 control participants. High connectivity word pairs elicit the least activation, low connectivity word pairs elicit more activation, and unrelated word pairs elicit the most activation across left temporal and frontal regions associated with semantic processing.

Table 1

Citation

Type of Scan

Specifications

Type of Reference (Control)

Task Orthographic

Phonological

Semantic

Demonet et al., 1992

PET Auditory Auditory

Auditory

Stimuli: Tone triplets Non-words Adjective-noun pairs Task: Monitor for rising pitch Monitor for

/b/ proceeded by /d/ Monitor for nouns of small animals with positive adjective

Areas Implicated (and/or results):

Left and right STG, left inferior frontal (Broca’s area).

Left inferior temporal (very small), left inferior parietal, left prefrontal areas 8,9 (very small), superior frontal, left precuneus and posterior cingulate.

Pugh et al., 1996

fMRI Visual Visual

Visual Visual

Stimuli: 2 sets of visual lines (e.g. / / \ /)

2 sets of letter strings in different cases (e.g. BtBT)

2 rhyming or nonrhyming nonwords (e.g. Lete - Jeat [rhyming])

2 categorically related or unrelated words (e.g. Corn - Rice [related])

Task: Same or different pattern? Same pattern of upper/lower case alternation?

Rhyme or not rhyme? Same category?


Lateral extrastriate Wide number of frontal and temporal regions Lateral orb, prefrontal dorsol and inferior frontal more associated with phonological than semantic

Middle and superior temporal gyri (males, but not females, showed more activity in category-line or case than rhyme-line or case).

Price et al., 1997

PET Auditory Auditory Auditory

Stimuli: 150 words corresponding to familiar objects

150 words corresponding to familiar objects

150 words corresponding to familiar objects

Task: How many syllables for each word?

Living or non-living object?


Left temporal pole, left posterior middle temporal gyrus, head of the left caudate nucleus; less so left middle temporal gyrus, left inferior temporal gyrus, left superior temporal sulcus, and left medial superior frontal gyrus

Both supramarginal gyri, right angular gyrus, left precentral gyrus, left cuneus; less so left superior temporal gyrus and right medial frontal gyrus

Crosson et al., 1999

fMRI Visual Visual Visual Visual

Stimuli: Nonsensical consonant strings 2 test words sharing letters with any of 3 memory words

2 test words rhyming with any of 3 memory words

2 test words semantically related to any of 3 memory words

Task: Monitor for whether test word begins and ends with the same letter.

Monitor for whether test word has last three letters the same as any of 3 memory words.

Monitor for whether test word rhymes with any of 3 memory words.

Monitor for whether test word is semantically related to any of 3 memory words.


Left prefrontal (Broca’s area), selective area of left lateral premotor (BA 6), extrastriate visual cortex

Selective areas of inferior frontal (BA 45, 46), selective areas of left lateral premotor (BA 6), left medial frontal, inferior temporo-occipital junction, left anterior thalamus, right cerebellum, midbrain

Left prefrontal (Broca’s area), selective area of inferior frontal (BA 47), left lateral premotor, left medial frontal, left posterior cortex (inferior temporal), brainstem-subcortical (left anterior and posterior thalamus)

Menard et al., PET Visual Visual Visual Visual


24

1996 Stimuli: 5 X’s or single crosshairs Words Words Pictures Task: Passive viewing Passive viewing Passive viewing

Passive viewing


5 X’s: Left BA 19, left angular gyrus, left insula, left dorsolateral prefrontal; crosshairs: Left angular gyrus, dorsolateral prefrontal, Broca’s area, right inferior parietal, right frontal eye fields

Left angular gyrus, left supramarginal area, left Broca’s area, right supplementary motor area

Left BA 18 & 19, middle temporal, left paracentral, right BA 19, 17, & 18

Sergent et al., 1992

PET & fMRI Visual

Stimuli: Point located in the center of a screen

Letters Letters Line drawings

Task: Concentrate on point Normal or mirror-reverse orientation?

Has an “ee” sound or not (e.g. B, C, D, G, P, Z)?

Living or non-living?


Left pulvinar, inferior parietal lobule, right inferior prefrontal gyrus

Left orbital frontal, left inferior frontal gyrus, left middle frontal gyrus

Left BA 18, fusiform gyrus, left lingual gyrus, left fusiform gyrus

Fujimaki et al., 2000

fMRI Visual Visual Visual Visual

Stimuli: Lines Japanese pseudocharacters Japanese katakana characters String of Japanese katakana characters Task: Vertical or horizontal? Pseudocharacters contain

horizontal element? Does the character contain the target vowel?

Is the string a noun (or a verb) or meaningless?


Lateral extrastriate cortex, posterior occipital-temporal sulcus, posterior inferior temporal area

Broca’s area/insula, posterior superior temporal sulcus, supramarginal gyrus, pre-central sulcus, supplementary motor area and anterior cingulate sulcus.

Lack of activation attributed to task.

Roskies et al., 2001

fMRI Visual Visual Visual

Stimuli: Fixation stimulus Word pairs Word pairs Task: Passive viewing Rhyme or not rhyme? 3 different tasks: [1] Synonyms or not?

[2] Easy categorization (i.e. Is the second word an exemplar of the first word?)? [3] Hard categorization?


Left middle insular cortex, left precentral gyrus (Broca’s & -49, 3, 16), region (-55, -11, 38) in the left premotor cortex, right anterior thalamus, and many other areas not traditionally associated with phonological processing.

[1] BA 21 in middle temporal gyrus (weakly), [2] & [3] left medial and lateral opercular regions and left anterior region of the inferior frontal area, right cerebellar region

Hagoort et al., 1999

PET Visual Visual Visual

Stimuli: Crosshair German pseudowords German Words Task: Passive viewing Reading Reading Areas Implicated (and/or

results): Left inferior frontal gyrus, extriate

cortex, middle fusiform gyrus, left superior temporal gyrus, left premotor cortex, cerebellum

Left lingual gyrus, right superior temporal gyrus, middle temporal gyrus, supplementary motor area, central parts of the cingulate


25

Wise et al., 1991

PET Auditory

Stimuli: None Nonwords 3 trials: [1] noun-noun word pairs semantically related or unrelated (e.g. fruit-apple and furniture shirt). [2] verb-noun word pairs semantically compatible or incompatible. [3] concrete noun.

Task: Instructed to “empty his mind” Listen [1] Signal when noun-noun pairs were semantically related. [2] Signal when noun-verb pairs were semantically compatible. [3] Think of a verb that is semantically compatible with the given noun and signal when done.


Networks along both superior temporal gyri

[1] & [2] Networks along both superior temporal gyri. [3] Left posterior superior temporal gyrus, left posterior inferior frontal gyrus, left posterior middle frontal gyrus, supplementary motor area

Petersen et al., 1988

PET Auditory & Visual

Stimuli:

Fixation point Visual words Auditory words Auditory & visual words

Task: Resting Passive viewing Speaking each presented word Saying a use for each presented word Areas Implicated (and/or

results): Extrastriate cortex Primary auditory cortex, left

temporoparietal cortex, left anterior superior temporal cortex, inferior anterior cingulated cortex

Left inferior frontal area, BA 47

Sonty et al., 2003

fMRI Visual

Stimuli:

Pairs of all consonant strings Visual words Visual words

Task: Respond if letter strings were identical

Respond only if word pairs are homonyms

Respond only if word pairs were synonyms


Left inferior frontal gyrus, left posterior middle temporal gyrus, left anterior cingulate gyrus

Left inferior frontal gyrus, left anterior cingulate gyrus, left temporoparietal junction, left intraparietal sulcus, bilateral superior temporal sulcus

Suzuki and Sakai, 2003

fMRI Auditory (Japanese)

Stimuli:

Pairs of pseudowords Sentences Sentences

Task: Press one button if both had same accent pattern and another button if different

Press one button if the presented accent is correct another if incorrect

Press one button if the presented sentence is semantically correct and another if incorrect


Bilateral precentral sulcus, right insula, left precentral gyrus, left intraparietal sulcus, bilateral superior temporal gyrus, anterior and posterior cingulated, cerebellum, and thalamus

Bilateral precentral sulcus, right middle frontal gyrus, left precentral gyrus, left supramarginal gyrus, bilateral superior temporal gyrus, left middle temporal gyrus, posterior cingulate, left caudate nucleus


26

running head: neuroimaging of semantic priming in ... language... · neuroimaging of semantic...

Documents