Seeing and hearing meaning: ERP and fMRI evidence of word versus picture integration into a sentence context
Open accessAbstract
Understanding language always occurs within a situational context and, therefore, often implies combining streams of information from different domains and modalities. One such combination is that of spoken language and visual information, which are perceived together in a variety of ways during everyday communication. Here we investigate whether and how words and pictures differ in terms of their neural correlates when they are integrated into a previously built-up sentence context. This is assessed in two experiments looking at the time course (measuring event-related potentials, ERPs) and the locus (using functional magnetic resonance imaging, fMRI) of this integration process. We manipulated the ease of semantic integration of word and/or picture to a previous sentence context to increase the semantic load of processing. In the ERP study, an increased semantic load led to an N400 effect which was similar for pictures and words in terms of latency and amplitude. In the fMRI study, we found overlapping activations to both picture and word integration in the left inferior frontal cortex. Specific activations for the integration of a word were observed in the left superior temporal cortex. We conclude that despite obvious differences in representational format, semantic information coming from pictures and words is integrated into a sentence context in similar ways in the brain. This study adds to the growing insight that the language system incorporates (semantic) information coming from linguistic and extralinguistic domains with the same neural time course and by recruitment of overlapping brain areas.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Inconsistency in social signals such as between iconic gestures and speech, or the emotional prosody of speech, impacts these regions.
“Inconsistency in social signals such as between iconic gestures and speech (e.g., Dick, Mok, Raja Beharelle, Goldin-Meadow, & Small, 2014;Willems et al., 2008), or the emotional prosody of speech (Kotz et al., 2003) also impacts these regions.”
From Grounding the neurobiology of language in first principles: The necessity of non-language-centric explanations for language comprehension (2018) · cites this paper as Willems et al., 2008
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 71 · Cited by 102
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. New York: Cambridge University Press.
- Forster, K. I. (1979). Levels of processing and the structure of the language processor. In W. E. Cooper & C. T. Walker (Eds.), Sentence processing: Psycholinguistic essays presented to Merrill Garrett (pp. 27-85). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
- In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 83-143). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
- Tanenhaus, M. K., & Trueswell, J. C. (1995). Sentence comprehension. In J. L. Miller & P. D. Eimas (Eds.), Speech, language, and communication (pp. 217-262).
- Authors
- Willems, R. M., Özyürek, A., & Hagoort, P.
- Affiliations
- Radboud University Nijmegen (NL)
- 1Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
- Venue
- Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
- Publisher
- MIT Press - Journals
- Published
- 2008-07-01
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1235-1249
- ISSN
- 0898-929X (ISSN-L)
- 1530-8898
- OpenAlex
- W2171678027
- Cited by
- 102
- References
- 71
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 6
- FWCI
- 5.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics (submittedVersion)
- Max Planck Digital Library (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Radboud Universiteit
- Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Action Observation and Synchronization
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
- Keywords
- sentence context, semantic integration, multimodal integration, N400, semantic load, left inferior frontal cortex, event-related potentials, functional MRI
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Analysis of Variance, Brain, Brain Mapping, Computer-Assisted Instruction, Electroencephalography, Female, Hearing, Humans, Functional Laterality, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Mental Processes, Oxygen, Photic Stimulation, Semantics, Time Factors, Vision, Ocular
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