Left-hemisphere cortical language regions respond equally to observed dialogue and monologue

IF 3.6 Q1 LINGUISTICS Neurobiology of Language Pub Date : 2023-10-03 DOI:10.1162/nol_a_00123
Halie Olson, Emily Chen, Kirsten Lydic, Rebecca Saxe
{"title":"Left-hemisphere cortical language regions respond equally to observed dialogue and monologue","authors":"Halie Olson, Emily Chen, Kirsten Lydic, Rebecca Saxe","doi":"10.1162/nol_a_00123","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Much of the language we encounter in our everyday lives comes in the form of conversation, yet the majority of research on the neural basis of language comprehension has used input from only one speaker at a time. 20 adults were scanned while passively observing audiovisual conversations using functional magnetic resonance imaging. In a block-design task, participants watched 20-second videos of puppets speaking either to another puppet (the “dialogue” condition) or directly to the viewer (“monologue”), while the audio was either comprehensible (played forward) or incomprehensible (played backward). Individually functionally-localized left-hemisphere language regions responded more to comprehensible than incomprehensible speech but did not respond differently to dialogue than monologue. In a second task, participants watched videos (1–3 minutes each) of two puppets conversing with each other, in which one puppet was comprehensible while the other’s speech was reversed. All participants saw the same visual input but were randomly assigned which character’s speech was comprehensible. In left-hemisphere cortical language regions, the timecourse of activity was correlated only among participants who heard the same character speaking comprehensibly, despite identical visual input across all participants. For comparison, some individually-localized theory of mind regions and right hemisphere homologues of language regions responded more to dialogue than monologue in the first task, and in the second task, activity in some regions was correlated across all participants regardless of which character was speaking comprehensibly. Together, these results suggest that canonical left-hemisphere cortical language regions are not sensitive to differences between observed dialogue and monologue.","PeriodicalId":34845,"journal":{"name":"Neurobiology of Language","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurobiology of Language","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1162/nol_a_00123","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Much of the language we encounter in our everyday lives comes in the form of conversation, yet the majority of research on the neural basis of language comprehension has used input from only one speaker at a time. 20 adults were scanned while passively observing audiovisual conversations using functional magnetic resonance imaging. In a block-design task, participants watched 20-second videos of puppets speaking either to another puppet (the “dialogue” condition) or directly to the viewer (“monologue”), while the audio was either comprehensible (played forward) or incomprehensible (played backward). Individually functionally-localized left-hemisphere language regions responded more to comprehensible than incomprehensible speech but did not respond differently to dialogue than monologue. In a second task, participants watched videos (1–3 minutes each) of two puppets conversing with each other, in which one puppet was comprehensible while the other’s speech was reversed. All participants saw the same visual input but were randomly assigned which character’s speech was comprehensible. In left-hemisphere cortical language regions, the timecourse of activity was correlated only among participants who heard the same character speaking comprehensibly, despite identical visual input across all participants. For comparison, some individually-localized theory of mind regions and right hemisphere homologues of language regions responded more to dialogue than monologue in the first task, and in the second task, activity in some regions was correlated across all participants regardless of which character was speaking comprehensibly. Together, these results suggest that canonical left-hemisphere cortical language regions are not sensitive to differences between observed dialogue and monologue.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
左脑皮层语言区对观察到的对话和独白的反应相同
我们在日常生活中遇到的大部分语言都是以对话的形式出现的,然而,大多数关于语言理解的神经基础的研究一次只使用了一个说话者的输入。20名成年人在被动观察视听对话的同时使用功能性磁共振成像进行扫描。在一个分组设计任务中,参与者观看了20秒的视频,视频中木偶对另一个木偶说话(“对话”条件)或直接对观众说话(“独白”条件),而音频要么是可以理解的(向前播放),要么是不可理解的(向后播放)。单独功能定位的左半球语言区域对可理解的言语比不可理解的言语反应更多,但对对话和独白的反应没有区别。在第二个任务中,参与者观看两个木偶相互交谈的视频(每个1-3分钟),其中一个木偶是可以理解的,而另一个是相反的。所有的参与者都看到了相同的视觉输入,但随机分配哪一个角色的演讲是可以理解的。在左半球皮层语言区,尽管所有参与者的视觉输入都是相同的,但只有在听到同一人物说话可以理解的参与者中,活动的时间过程才相关。相比之下,在第一个任务中,一些个体定位的心智理论区域和右半球语言区域对对话的反应比对独白的反应更强;在第二个任务中,所有参与者的某些区域的活动都是相关的,而不管哪个角色说话是可以理解的。总之,这些结果表明,典型的左半球皮层语言区域对观察到的对话和独白之间的差异并不敏感。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Neurobiology of Language
Neurobiology of Language Social Sciences-Linguistics and Language
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
6.20%
发文量
32
审稿时长
17 weeks
期刊最新文献
The Domain-Specific Neural Basis of Auditory Statistical Learning in 5-7-Year-Old Children. A Comparison of Denoising Approaches for Spoken Word Production Related Artefacts in Continuous Multiband fMRI Data. Neural Mechanisms of Learning and Consolidation of Morphologically Derived Words in a Novel Language: Evidence From Hebrew Speakers. Cerebellar Atrophy and Language Processing in Chronic Left-Hemisphere Stroke. Cortico-Cerebellar Monitoring of Speech Sequence Production.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1