Cited by 102Neurobiology of Language and BilingualismAction Observation and SynchronizationReading and Literacy Development

Seeing and hearing meaning: ERP and fMRI evidence of word versus picture integration into a sentence context

Open access
Willems, Roel M., Özyürek, Aslı, Hagoort, Peter·2008·Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

Abstract

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1162/jocn.2008.20085

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.

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?

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

  1. Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  2. 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.
  3. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 83-143). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
  4. 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
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
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