Skip Nav Destination
Close Modal
Update search
NARROW
Format
Journal
TocHeadingTitle
Date
Availability
1-2 of 2
Walter Huber
Close
Follow your search
Access your saved searches in your account
Would you like to receive an alert when new items match your search?
Sort by
Journal Articles
Publisher: Journals Gateway
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience (2011) 23 (5): 1263–1273.
Published: 01 May 2011
FIGURES
Abstract
View article
PDF
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.
Journal Articles
Publisher: Journals Gateway
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience (2009) 21 (4): 697–712.
Published: 01 April 2009
Abstract
View article
PDF
Functional imaging studies of single word production have consistently reported activation of the lateral prefrontal and cingulate cortex. Its contribution has been shown to be sensitive to task demands, which can be manipulated by the degree of response specification. Compared with classical verbal fluency, free word association relies less on response restrictions but to a greater extent on associative binding processes, usually subserved by the hippocampus. To elucidate the relevance of the frontal and medial-temporal areas during verbal retrieval tasks, we applied varying degrees of response specification. During fMRI data acquisition, 18 subjects performed a free verbal association (FVA), a semantic verbal fluency (SVF) task, and a phonological verbal fluency (PVF) task. Externally guided word production served as a baseline condition to control for basic articulatory and reading processes. As expected, increased brain activity was observed in the left lateral and bilateral medial frontal cortices for SVF and PVF. The anterior cingulate gyrus was the only structure common to both fluency tasks in direct comparison to the less restricted FVA task. The hippocampus was engaged during associative and semantic retrieval. Interestingly, hippocampal activity was selectively evident during FVA in direct comparison to SVF when it was controlled for stimulus–response relations. The current data confirm the role of the left prefrontal–cingulate network in constrained word production. Hippocampal activity during spontaneous word production is a novel finding and seems to be dependent on the retrieval process (free vs. constrained) rather than the variety of stimulus–response relationships that is involved.