4.6 Article

Hemispheric differences in processing the literal interpretation of idioms: Converging evidence from behavioral and fMRI studies

期刊

CORTEX
卷 44, 期 7, 页码 848-860

出版社

ELSEVIER MASSON, CORP OFF
DOI: 10.1016/j.cortex.2007.04.004

关键词

idioms; fMRI; literal; salience; ambiguity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The present study examined the role of the left (LH) and right (RH) cerebral hemispheres in processing alternative meanings of idiomatic sentences. We conducted two experiments using ambiguous idioms with plausible literal interpretations as stimuli. In the first experiment we tested hemispheric differences in accessing either the literal or the idiomatic meaning of idioms for targets presented to either the left or the right visual field. In the second experiment, we used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to define regional brain activation patterns in healthy adults processing either the idiomatic meaning of idioms or the literal meanings of either idioms or literal sentences. According to the Graded Salience Hypothesis (GSH, Giora, 2003), a selective RH involvement in the processing of nonsalient meanings, such as literal interpretations of idiomatic expressions, was expected. Results of the two experiments were consistent with the GSH predictions and show that literal interpretations of idioms are accessed faster than their idiomatic meanings in the RH. The fMRI data showed that processing the idiomatic interpretation of idioms and the literal interpretations of literal sentences involved LH regions whereas processing the literal interpretation of idioms was associated with increased activity in right brain regions including the right precuneus, right middle frontal gyrus (MFG), right posterior middle temporal gyrus (MTG), and right anterior superior temporal gyrus (STG). We suggest that these RH areas are involved in semantic ambiguity resolution and in processing nonsalient meanings of conventional idiomatic expressions. (C) 2007 Elsevier Masson Srl. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据