Cited by 31Neurobiology of Language and BilingualismReading and Literacy DevelopmentAction Observation and Synchronization

Interpretation-mediated changes in neural activity during language comprehension

Open access
Cooper, Emily A., Hasson, Uri, Small, Steven L.·2011·NeuroImage

Abstract

Using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), we identified cortical regions mediating interpretive processes that take place during language comprehension. We manipulated participants' interpretation of texts by asking them to focus on action-, space-, or time-related features while listening to identical short stories. We identify several cortical regions where activity varied significantly in response to this attention manipulation, even though the content being processed was exactly the same. Activity in the posterior and anterior sections of the left inferior frontal gyrus (IFG), which are thought to have different sensitivities to high-level language processing, was modulated by the listeners' attentional focus, but in ways that were quite different. The posterior left IFG (Pars Opercularis) showed different activity levels for the three conditions. However, a population coding analysis demonstrated similar distributions of activity across conditions. This suggests that while the gain of the response in the Pars Opercularis was modulated, its core organization was relatively invariant across the experimental conditions. In the anterior left IFG (Pars Triangularis), the analysis of population codes revealed different activity patterns between conditions: there was little similarity between activity during time-attention and action- and space-attention, however there were similar activity patterns while attending to space and action information. In addition, both the left superior temporal gyrus and sulcus showed greater activity in the space and action attention conditions when contrasted with time attention. We discuss these findings in light of work on the role of left IFG in processing semantic information in language, and in light of theories suggesting that temporal information in language is processed in the brain using similar mechanisms as spatial information. Our findings suggest that a substantial source of variance in neural activity during language comprehension emerges from the internally-driven, information-seeking preferences of listeners rather than the syntactic or semantic properties of a text.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.01.003

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • This study is the first to identify high-level brain regions that distinguish idiosyncratic, spontaneous differences in how an ambiguous narrative is interpreted.

    “This work is the first to identify high-level regions of the brain that can discriminate between idiosyncratic, spontaneous differences in the interpretation of an ambiguous narrative.”

    From Shared understanding of narratives is correlated with shared neural responses (2019) · cites this paper as Cooper et al., 2011

  • The results align with earlier studies that directly manipulated interpretation by directing attention, changing perspective, or providing biasing context.

    “These results are consistent with previous studies that directly manipulated interpretation by directing attention to different aspects of a spoken narrative (Cooper et al., 2011), changing perspective (Lahnakoski et al., 2014), or biasing with contextual information (Yeshurun et al., 2017b).”

    From Shared understanding of narratives is correlated with shared neural responses (2019) · cites this paper as Cooper et al., 2011

  • The Movie group was made larger, following earlier ISC studies that compared conditions.

    “A larger sample size for the Movie group was selected based on previous work using ISC to detect differences among conditions (Cooper et al., 2011; Lahnakoski et al., 2014; Schmälzle et al., 2015; Yeshurun et al., 2017b, 2017a).”

    From Shared understanding of narratives is correlated with shared neural responses (2019) · cites this paper as Cooper et al., 2011

  • Comprehenders' mood or the types of information people look for in a text also impacts activation in these regions.

    “Finally, comprehenders' mood (Egidi & Caramazza, 2014) or the types of information people look for in a text (Cooper, Hasson, & Small, 2011) also impacts activation in these regions.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Van Dijk TA Kintsch W Strategies for discourse comprehension 1983 New York Academic Press

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cooper, E. A., Hasson, U., & Small, S. L.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
  • University of Trento (IT)
  • University of Chicago (US)
Corresponding author
Cooper, Emily A.
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-04
Volume
55
Issue
3
Pages
1314-1323
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2029000423
Cited by
31
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
0.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Institutional Research Information System (Università degli Studi di Trento) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Health (NIH RO1-DC03378)
  • University of Chicago
  • Department of Defense
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Action Observation and Synchronization
Keywords
language comprehension, attentional focus, left inferior frontal gyrus, pars opercularis, pars triangularis, superior temporal gyrus, superior temporal sulcus, temporal processing, spatial data processing, population coding, semantic processing
MeSH terms
Acoustic Stimulation, Attention, Brain, Brain Mapping, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Female, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Language, Functional Laterality, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Oxygen, Semantics, Space Perception, Comprehension, Narration, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review