Cited by 39Neurobiology of Language and BilingualismReading and Literacy DevelopmentNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

How different types of conceptual relations modulate brain activation during semantic priming

Open access
Sachs, Olga, Weis, Susanne, Zellagui, Nadia, Sass, Katharina, Huber, Walter, Zvyagintsev, Mikhail, Mathiak, Klaus, Kircher, Tilo·2011·Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

Abstract

Semantic priming, a well-established technique to study conceptual representation, has thus far produced variable fMRI results, both regarding the type of priming effects and their correlation with brain activation. The aims of the current study were (a) to investigate two types of semantic relations--categorical versus associative--under controlled processing conditions and (b) to investigate whether categorical and associative relations between words are correlated with response enhancement or response suppression. We used fMRI to examine neural correlates of semantic priming as subjects performed a lexical decision task with a long SOA (800 msec). Four experimental conditions were compared: categorically related trials (couch-bed), associatively related trials (couch-pillow), unrelated trials (couch-bridge), and nonword trials (couch-sibor). We found similar behavioral priming effects for both categorically and associatively related pairs. However, the neural priming effects differed: Categorically related pairs resulted in a neural suppression effect in the right MFG, whereas associatively related pairs resulted in response enhancement in the left IFG. A direct contrast between them revealed activation for categorically related trials in the right insular lobe. We conclude that perceptual and functional similarity of categorically related words may lead to response suppression within right-lateralized frontal regions that represent more retrieval effort and the recruitment of a broader semantic field. Associatively related pairs that require a different processing of the related target compared to the prime may lead to the response enhancement within left inferior frontal regions. Nevertheless, the differences between associative and categorical relations might be parametrical rather than absolutely distinct as both relationships recruit similar regions to a different degree.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1162/jocn.2010.21483

Cites

68 of 68 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Right frontal activation is more likely to be observed in the context of more retrieval effort.

    “Right frontal activation was more likely to be observed in the context of more retrieval effort (Sachs et al., 2011) which may explain the corresponding increases during paced relative to unpaced word production (Basho et al., 2007) and for older relative to younger participants (Meinzer et al., 2009).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Sachs, O., Weis, S., Zellagui, N., Sass, K., Huber, W., Zvyagintsev, M., Mathiak, K., & Kircher, T.
Affiliations
  • Jülich Aachen Research Alliance (DE)
  • RWTH Aachen University (DE)
  • Philipps University of Marburg (DE)
Venue
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
Published
2011-05-01
Volume
23
Issue
5
Pages
1263-1273
ISSN
  • 0898-929X (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-8898
OpenAlex
W2006527535
Cited by
39
References
68
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 4
FWCI
1.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Durham Research Online (Durham University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • RWTH Publications (RWTH Aachen) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
semantic priming, categorical relations, associative relations, conceptual representation, response suppression, response enhancement, left inferior frontal gyrus, insula, semantic field, lexical decision, hemispheric lateralization
MeSH terms
Adult, Analysis of Variance, Association Learning, Brain, Brain Mapping, Classification, Concept Formation, Cues, Evoked Potentials, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Mental Processes, Reaction Time, Reference Values, Semantics, Verbal Behavior, 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