首页> 外文期刊>Neuropsychologia >Looking at the brains behind figurative language-A quantitative meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies on metaphor, idiom, and irony processing
【24h】

Looking at the brains behind figurative language-A quantitative meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies on metaphor, idiom, and irony processing

机译:看着比喻语言背后的大脑-关于隐喻,成语和反讽处理的神经影像研究的定量荟萃分析

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

A quantitative, coordinate-based meta-analysis combined data from 354 participants across 22 fMRI studies and one positron emission tomography (PET) study to identify the differences in neural correlates of figurative and literal language processing, and to investigate the role of the right hemisphere (RH) in figurative language processing. Studies that reported peak activations in standard space contrasting figurative vs. literal language processing at whole brain level in healthy adults were included. The left and right IFG, large parts of the left temporal lobe, the bilateral medial frontal gyri (medFG) and an area around the left amygdala emerged for figurative language processing across studies. Conditions requiring exclusively literal language processing did not activate any selective regions in most of the cases, but if so they activated the cuneus/precuneus, right MFG and the right IPL. No general RH advantage for metaphor processing could be found. On the contrary, significant clusters of activation for metaphor conditions were mostly lateralized to the left hemisphere (LH). Subgroup comparisons between experiments on metaphors, idioms, and irony/sarcasm revealed shared activations in left frontotemporal regions for idiom and metaphor processing. Irony/sarcasm processing was correlated with activations in midline structures such as the medFG, ACC and cuneus/precuneus. To test the graded salience hypothesis (GSH, Giora, 1997), novel metaphors were contrasted against conventional metaphors. In line with the GSH, RH involvement was found for novel metaphors only. Here we show that more analytic, semantic processes are involved in metaphor comprehension, whereas irony/sarcasm comprehension involves theory of mind processes.
机译:一项基于坐标的定量荟萃分析,结合了来自22个fMRI研究和一个正电子发射断层扫描(PET)研究中的354位参与者的数据,以确定比喻和文字语言处理在神经相关性方面的差异,并研究右半球的作用(RH)在比喻语言处理中。包括了报告在健康成年人的全脑水平上,在标准空间中峰值激活与图形语言与文字语言处理形成对比的研究。出现了左右IFG,左颞叶的大部分,双侧内侧额叶回(medFG)和左杏仁核周围的区域,用于跨研究的具有比喻性的语言处理。在大多数情况下,仅要求文字语言处理的条件不会激活任何选择区域,但如果是这样,它们会激活楔形/足突,正确的MFG和正确的IPL。没有找到隐喻处理的一般RH优势。相反,对于隐喻条件而言,重要的激活簇大部分被横向化到左半球(LH)。隐喻,习语和反讽/讽刺实验之间的亚组比较显示,在左额颞叶区域有成语和隐喻处理的共同激活。具有讽刺意味的/嘲讽的处理过程与中线结构(如medFG,ACC和楔形/胎前神经)的激活相关。为了检验分级显着性假设(GSH,Giora,1997),将新型隐喻与常规隐喻进行了对比。与GSH一致,仅涉及到新隐喻中的RH参与。在这里,我们表明隐喻理解中涉及更多的分析性语义过程,而讽刺/讽刺理解涉及心智过程理论。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号