advertisement

UCSD BAIS

50 %
50 %
advertisement
Information about UCSD BAIS
Entertainment

Published on January 29, 2008

Author: Teodora

Source: authorstream.com

advertisement

Bilateral semantic processing: Inferences in language, insight in problem solving:  Bilateral semantic processing: Inferences in language, insight in problem solving Mark Jung-Beeman Northwestern University Department of Psychology Neuroscience Institute Cognitive Brain Mapping Group \ Bilateral semantic processing: Inferences in language, insight in problem solving:  Bilateral semantic processing: Inferences in language, insight in problem solving Northwestern University Drexel University Zoe Clancy John Kounios Jason Haberman (UCDavis) Debbie Green Sandra Virtue (Depaul U) Jennifer Frymiare (U Wisc) Stella Arambel (deceased) Jessica Fleck Dianne Patterson Richard Greenblatt Todd Parrish Paul Reber Bar-Ilan University Terri Swan Miriam Faust Karuna Subramaniam Nira Mashal Ed Bowden Research sponsored by NIDCD/NIH Slide3:  OUTLINE: • Drawing inferences from stories -- bilateral comprehension • Three bilateral component semantic processes (to start) • Insight -- bilateral, parallel processing during problem solving Bilateral semantic processing: Inferences in language, insight in problem solving Slide4:  Bilateral Activation, Integration, and Selection model of semantic processing Semantic activation - “Wernicke’s area” Bottom-up lexical-semantic activation: index of semantic representations (pMTG) Semantic integration - anterior Sup. Temp. Gyrus Compute semantic overlap - detect or generate (aSTG) Semantic selection - Inf. Frontal Gyrus Select among competing activated concepts (IFG) Slide6:  OUTLINE: • Drawing inferences from stories -- bilateral comprehension • Three bilateral component semantic processes (to start) • Insight -- bilateral, parallel processing during problem solving Bilateral semantic processing: Inferences in language, insight in problem solving Slide7:  Problems with view that language is purely a LH function General anatomical symmetry RH damaged patients - some language problems Recovery from aphasia, hemispherectomy, callosotomy Neuroimaging - always some RH signal, some tasks RH>LH Some tasks lvf-RH better than rvf-LH Slide8:  Natural language, stories, discourse • Higher level semantic processing (plus all lower levels) As language input more complex (and natural): • More anterior temporal lobes • More bilateral processing Brain bases of comprehension of natural language Slide9:  Causal bridging (coherence) inferences “Before going to the wedding, John was sitting around in his jeans, so he went to his bedroom to find some clothes.” Brain bases of cognitive processes when people draw inferences from stories Slide10:  Causal bridging (coherence) inferences “Before going to the wedding, John was sitting around in his jeans, so he went to his bedroom to find some clothes. He came out wearing his tuxedo, which had belonged to John's father, but looked like new.” Brain bases of cognitive processes when people draw inferences from stories Slide11:  Causal bridging (coherence) inferences “Before going to the wedding, John was sitting around in his jeans, so he went to his bedroom to find some clothes. He came out wearing his tuxedo, which had belonged to John's father, but looked like new.” CHANGE Brain bases of cognitive processes when people draw inferences from stories Slide12:  We know people make such causal inferences We know a lot about other types of inferences that people make - types of text, motivation, knowledge, capacity We still don’t know much about component processes that support this seemingly complex behavior Brain bases of cognitive processes when people draw inferences from stories Slide13:  RHD patients have difficulty drawing inferences • Answer questions about inferable events less accurately than control subjects; intact on explicitly stated facts (Brownell et al., 1986; Beeman, 1993) • Do not show inference-related priming; control subjects do (Beeman, 1993) RH semantic processing and inferences Slide14:  Proposed component processes of inference generation 1) Activation / integration (detect overlap) 2) Selection 3) Incorporation / integration (map overlap) Hemispheric cooperation RH activates information that may support inferences. Weak activation not reach consciousness. Slide15:  Time course of inference related semantic activation in both hemispheres during story comprehension. “Before going to the wedding, John was sitting around in his jeans,1 so he went to his bedroom to find some clothes.2 After a few minutes,3 he came out wearing his tuxedo,4 which had belonged to John's father5, but was still fashionable and looked like new.” - CHANGE (1) and (2): Predictive inference. (3): Transition. (4): Coherence or bridging inference. (5): Resolved and incorporated. Slide16:  Right visual field Left Hemisphere Right Hemisphere Left visual field Slide17:  “Before going to the wedding, John was sitting around in his jeans,1 so he went to his bedroom to find some clothes.2 After a few minutes,3 he came out wearing his tuxedo,4 which had belonged to John's father5, but was still fashionable and looked like new.” Brain and Language, 2000 Priming: Inference faster than Unrel Asymmetric dynamic semantic fields: relatively coarser coding in RH; better selection in LH:  Asymmetric dynamic semantic fields: relatively coarser coding in RH; better selection in LH foot foot CUT TOES RULER Right Hemisphere Left Hemisphere Small but strongly activated; Focused on dominant or contextually relevant concepts - easy to select, interpret, output Large but weakly activated; Diffuse, including secondary and less relevant concepts - hard to select, output Slide19:  foot pain glass glass pain foot RH coarse semantic coding: Increased likelihood of semantic overlap for distant semantic relations Slide20:  Bilateral Activation, Integration, and Selection model of semantic processing Semantic activation - “Wernicke’s area” Bottom-up lexical-semantic activation: index of semantic representations (pMTG) Semantic integration - anterior Sup. Temp. Gyrus Compute semantic overlap - detect or generate (aSTG) Semantic selection - Inf. Frontal Gyrus Select among competing activated concepts (IFG) RH Middle & superior temporal gyrus involved in computing semantic integration:  RH Middle & superior temporal gyrus involved in computing semantic integration Deriving theme from paragraphs (St. George et al.) Generating best ending (Kirchner et al.) Generating inferences? - moderately related sentence pairs (Mason & Just) Metaphoric over literal sentences (Bottini et al.) Detecting temporal/emotional inconsistency (Ferstl) Generating insight solutions (Jung-Beeman et al; Kounios et al) Brain activity when people draw inferences on-line, as indexed by fMRI:  Brain activity when people draw inferences on-line, as indexed by fMRI Three ways to contrast inference versus no-inference conditions: - Text: infernce versus no-inference; strong vs. weak constraint - Individual differences: high versus low Working Memory - Behavioral measures: recall of inferences General Results: Bilateral activity in pMTG; aSTG; IFG - modulated by constraint, WM, time Brain activity when people draw inferences on-line, as indexed by fMRI:  Brain activity when people draw inferences on-line, as indexed by fMRI Inference: … John was going to a wedding, but he had been sitting around the house in his jeans, so he went to his bedroom to find some clothes. Soon he came out wearing his tuxedo, * … Explicit: …went to his bedroom to change his clothes. Soon he came out wearing his tuxedo ,* … - High baseline, ongoing stories; small input difference Slide24:  Semantic integration at moment of implied events: Predominantly RH aSTG Slide25:  L R Post Ant L R Semantic integration at event point: Bilateral anterior Superior Temporal Gyrus L R Lower (ns) threshold, selected for LH STG Slide26:  Semantic activation and integration at coherence break (“tuxedo”): Predominantly LH STG Semantic selection: High versus low working memory:  Semantic selection: High versus low working memory High WM (reading span) subs show stronger, earlier evidence of semantic selection of inferences (St. George et al; many behavioral) • Completion requires selection, incorporation Semantic selection: Inferior frontal gyrus:  Semantic selection: Inferior frontal gyrus Selecting some concepts over competitors • Usually IFG in LH (Thompson-Schill et al; Barch; Friston) Some instances, RH IFG (Seger 2000; Friederici et al., 2000; Jung-Beeman et al.) Semantic selection: Inferior frontal gyrus:  Semantic selection: Inferior frontal gyrus Selecting some concepts over competitors • Usually IFG in LH (Thompson-Schill et al; Barch; Friston) Some instances, RH IFG Unusual verb generation (cake -> “decorate”) (Seger 2000) Repair grammatical errors (Friederici et al., 2000) Utilize unintended meaning of ambiguous words in sentence (Jung-Beeman et al.) Slide30:  Semantic selection: fMRI signal in IFG (LH > RH) at coherence break in High WM subs only (Fig: High WM > Low WM) Replication and extension: Working memory and predictability:  Replication and extension: Working memory and predictability Unpredictable inferences: LH activation, IFG, pSTG • searching for connections Predictable inferences: Bilateral activation, IFG, pSTG • building on connections Higher WM (n=13) > lower WM (n=13): • building on connections • facile comprehension Slide32:  RH pSTG Successful integration versus continued activation: STG in High vs. Low WM subs at coherence break, Predictable inferences RH IFG High WM subs show bilateral (stronger in RH) Low WM show LH only p<.001 Replication and extension: Working memory and predictability:  Replication and extension: Working memory and predictability Unpredictable inferences: LH activation, IFG, pSTG • searching for connections Predictable inferences: Bilateral activation, IFG, pSTG • building on connections Higher WM (n=13) > lower WM (n=13): RH activation, pSTG, IFG, and a little aSTG • building on connections • facile comprehension Slide34:  Successful integration versus continued activation: STG in High vs. Low WM subs at coherence break, Predictable inferences RH aSTG High WM subs show bilateral (stronger in RH) Low WM show LH only, no aSTG p<.005 Replication and extension: Working memory and predictability:  Replication and extension: Working memory and predictability Unpredictable inferences: LH activation, IFG, pSTG • searching for connections Predictable inferences: Bilateral activation, IFG, pSTG • building on connections Higher WM (n=13) > lower WM (n=13): RH activation, pSTG, IFG, and a little aSTG • building on connections • facile comprehension Slide36:  Conclusions about inferences Semantic integration builds up as story hints that some event might occur: anterior STG; RH (?) At coherence break: integration and activation (STG), especially in LH completing the inference requires selection (IFG) RH contributes to facile inferencing/comprehension, not just kick in when demands are high Current projects, Future directions:  Current projects, Future directions Shift semantic distance for integration --> shift hemi asymmetry Closely tie to behavioral markers of inference activation, selection, incorporation Recall of inferences √ Priming of inferences Successful integration versus effort of difficult integration Incorporation (recall study) Recalled inferences:  Recalled inferences If inferences recalled, must have been incorporated Working Memory correlates with total recall Recall of inferences NOT with recall of episodes w/o inferences Contrast fMRI signal of recalled infs versus recall episode, no infs Slide39:  L R Post Ant L R Inferences recalled versus Episode recalled, inf not recalled L R R R p<.005 , positive only Bilateral pMTG, stronger in RH RH aSTS, bilat IFG Slide40:  So what? Knowing where processing occurs informs and constrains what and how it occurs Slide41:  OUTLINE: • Drawing inferences from stories -- bilateral comprehension • Three bilateral component semantic processes (to start) • Insight -- bilateral, parallel processing during problem solving Bilateral semantic processing: Inferences in language, insight in problem solving Slide42:  Bilateral Activation, Integration, and Selection model of semantic processing Semantic activation - “Wernicke’s area” Bottom-up lexical-semantic activation: index of semantic representations (pMTG) Semantic integration - anterior Sup. Temp. Gyrus Compute semantic overlap - detect or generate (aSTG) Semantic selection - Inf. Frontal Gyrus Select among competing activated concepts (IFG) Slide43:  Why does the RH code more coarsely? Asymmetries in neural microcircuitry Given topographic mapping of brain, broader input/output fields => coarser semantic coding:  Given topographic mapping of brain, broader input/output fields => coarser semantic coding foot foot CUT TOES RULER Right Hemisphere Left Hemisphere Small but strongly activated; Focused on dominant or contextually relevant concepts Large but weakly activated; Diffuse, including secondary and less relevant concepts Slide47:  foot pain glass glass pain foot RH coarse semantic coding: Increased likelihood of semantic overlap for distant semantic relations Slide49:  Why a separate area for semantic integration? Could form associations in “activation” area BUT Higher level relations, correlated co-occurrence, indirect Ability to extract, attend to, & manipulate relations Analogous to individual areas within vision (e.g., motion) Slide50:  Why anterior STS/STG for semantic integration? Again, neural architecture Slide51:  L R Post Ant L R Patchy organization and multisensory integration (Beauchamp 2004) Slide53:  Why anterior STS/STG for semantic integration? Again, neural architecture More anterior = longer intrinsic conxns, better to integrate across patches RH = longer than LH Slide55:  Important clarifications Not an “inference area” Semantic integration - participates in many functions Not specific to categories of inferences - varies with demand Tight comparison not reveal whole network Just areas that differ when storied imply versus explicitly state events RH and LH cooperate Slide58:  OUTLINE: • Drawing inferences from stories -- bilateral comprehension • Three bilateral component semantic processes (to start) • Insight -- bilateral, parallel processing in problem solving Bilateral semantic processing: Inferences in language, insight in problem solving Slide59:  Most problems solved with mix of analytic and insight processing • Distinct computations, distributed across hemispheres, allows two approaches to proceed simultaneously (partially interactive) • Hemispheric components, task shielding/switching Brain bases of insight during problem solving: Aha! and antecedents Archimedes and the crown:  Archimedes and the crown King’s crown - gold, or silver Archimedes knew gold and silver differed in density Archimedes knew weight, but couldn’t geometrically measure to obtain volume (and compute density) Archimedes and the crown:  Archimedes and the crown Why has story persisted so long? Archimedes and the crown:  Archimedes and the crown Why has story persisted so long? • Resonates with our own experiences of solving insight problems solving problems with insight Archimedes and the crown:  Archimedes and the crown Solvers reach impasse (dead-end) - couldn’t measure Must reinterpret some aspect of problem Volume by water displacement Unconscious processing important If not thinking of crown, how recognize importance of water? Solution accompanied by “Eureka!” Insight component processes?:  Insight component processes? Insight solutions associated with Switching to new strategy or associations (“restructuring”) Semantic integration -- solvers see connections that previously eluded them Right hemisphere? Solving problems with insight:  Solving problems with insight Characteristics of both “insight problems” and solving processes similar to characteristics of discourse and comprehension processes for which the Right Hemisphere (RH) seems to make contributions Drawing inferences, understanding the gist Getting jokes, metaphors, connotations 2ndary word meanings Solving problems with insight:  Solving problems with insight Solvers reach impasse (dead-end) Must reinterpret some aspect of problem Unconscious processing important Solution accompanied by “Aha!” Slide68:  Short insight problems: RAT Compound Remote Associate Problems Bowden & Jung Beeman, 1998 Remote Associates Test: The RAT (Mednick, 1962) child scan lame same strike tennis Slide69:  RAT Compound Remote Associate Problems Bowden & Jung Beeman, 1998 child scan lame same strike tennis Aha! experience:  Aha! experience Solution appears sudden and obvious As soon as you think of solution, you “just know” it works for all three words Comes as a whole, not part by part (vs strategic, step-by-step testing, etc) Event-related fMRI design:  Event-related fMRI design Insight solutions versus noninsight solutions Very “tight” comparison Not reveal whole network of problem solving Highlights just components that are uniquely engaged (or at least emphasized) for insight solutions Slide73:  L R Post Ant L R Insight effect in RH anterior Superior Temporal Gyrus: FMRI signal for insight > noninsight solutions. L coronal R axial sagittal p < .005, cluster > 500 mm3 Slide74:  Percent signal change Percent Signal change Time (sec) RH aSTG: Singal change across the active region Signal change for insight Insight effect and noninsight solutions (Ins - non) Slide75:  “Best” cluster within each hemisphere!! Slide76:  Parallel study with 128 channel EEG Temporal specificity Processing specificity - frequencies Slide77:  Gamma band insight effects Insight solving conclusions:  Insight solving conclusions Insight solutions associated with increased activity in RH aSTG Binding and conscious accessibility (gamma) over RH aSTG Preceded by visual gating (alpha) - RH temp/ occipital areas Insight solving conclusions:  Insight solving conclusions Insight solutions associated with increased activity in RH aSTG Binding and conscious accessibility (gamma) over RH aSTG - Lexical or semantic integration Preceded by visual gating (alpha) - RH temp/ occipital areas - Sensory gating indicates cognitive control? Replication plus… more areas New data set: improved N, scanner, protocol:  Replication plus… more areas New data set: improved N, scanner, protocol RH aSTG (distant semantic integration) Anterior Cingulate (monitoring response competition, switching) Posterior Cingulate - same? Hippocampus/parahippocampal gyri - memory, reorgnzn? Slide84:  L R Post Ant L R Insight effect in RH Superior Temporal Gyrus: FMRI signal for insight > noninsight solutions. L coronal R axial sagittal p < .001, cluster > 1000 mm3 ant and post STG Slide85:  NONinsight effect in LH Inf. Frontal Gyrus: FMRI signal for NONinsight > insight solutions. sagittal p < .005, cluster > 1000 mm3 LH IFG - dominant semantic retrieval or selection - turns on at problem onset - off at solution, esp’y Insight RH IFG - unusual retrieval / selection - off at problem onset - on at solution (I>NI, ns) General vs specific mechanisms - Visual Aha!:  General vs specific mechanisms - Visual Aha! Slide87:  L R Post Ant L R Visual Aha! effect in RH anterior Mid Temporal Gyrus: FMRI signal for insight > noninsight recognition L coronal R axial sagittal p < .01, cluster > 500 mm3 Slide88:  L R Post Ant L R Visual Aha! effect in RH anterior Mid Temporal Gyrus: FMRI signal for insight > noninsight recognition L coronal R axial sagittal p < .01, cluster > 500 mm3 Slide89:  L R Post Ant L R Visual Aha! effect in RH Angular Gyrus: FMRI signal for insight > noninsight recognition L coronal R axial sagittal p < .01, cluster > 500 mm3 Also: RH Sup Frontal Gyrus Slide90:  L R Post Ant L R Visual Aha! effect in Bilateral M. Occipital Gyri: FMRI signal for NONinsight > insight recognition L coronal R axial sagittal p < .005, cluster > 500 mm3 Visual Aha! conclusions:  Visual Aha! conclusions NOT just for verbal problems Similarities - shared mechanisms (not “insight”, but…) Insight: top-down, cognitive control, integration RH -- unconscious, weak but mutually constraining, integration Recognition comes as a whole, not part by part Noninsight: bottom-up Some differences - Angular Gyrus somewhat surprising General vs specific mechanisms - Visual Aha!:  General vs specific mechanisms - Visual Aha! Insight solving conclusions:  Insight solving conclusions Insight solutions associated with increased activity in RH aSTG Binding and conscious accessibility (gamma) over RH aSTG Preceded by visual gating (alpha) - RH temp/ occipital areas Insight solving conclusions:  Insight solving conclusions Insight solutions associated with increased activity in RH aSTG Binding and conscious accessibility (gamma) over RH aSTG - Lexical or semantic integration Preceded by visual gating (alpha) - RH temp/ occipital areas - Sensory gating indicates cognitive control? Insight solving conclusions:  Insight solving conclusions Insight solutions associated with Semantic integration -- solvers see connections that previously eluded them When “the light goes on…” Slide96:  Bilateral Activation, Integration, and Selection model of semantic processing Semantic activation - “Wernicke’s area” Bottom-up lexical-semantic activation: index of semantic representations (pMTG) Semantic integration - anterior Sup. Temp. Gyrus Compute semantic overlap - detect or generate (aSTG) Semantic selection - Inf. Frontal Gyrus Select among competing activated concepts (IFG) Insight preparation:  Insight preparation Do different mental states influence how you solve problems? Brain activity during a “rest period” (fMRI) or at a “Ready?” prompt (EEG), prior to getting a problem Problems solved with insight versus without insight Preparation for Insight:  Preparation for Insight Is there a general form of preparation for insight that begins before a problem is presented? We examined neural activity during the 2 sec immediately before each problem was presented. Compared neural activity preceding problems solved with insight to activity preceding problems solved without insight. Slide99:  t Conclusions:  Conclusions Two forms of preparation. Noninsight: Increased visual attention to displayed problem. Insight: Mobilization and control of cognitive resources; activation of temporal lobe semantic regions; suppression of irrelevant thoughts. Summary:  Summary Insight is different from ordinary problem solving. Insight involves a sudden, discrete, awareness of the solution to a problem. Insight involves different neural structures and mechanisms. Insight is the result of a special form of preparation involving cognitive regulation by medial frontal region. Is insight really sudden? Part II: Antecedents of insight:  Is insight really sudden? Part II: Antecedents of insight Positive mood facilitates insight and creative problem solving (Isen et al.) Insight and mood:  Insight and mood Positive mood associated with increased creativity Better access to more distant associations Increased cognitive flexibility Anxiety associated with decreased creativity narrower focus of attention Positive mood and insight:  Positive mood and insight Mood Positive mood enhances (anxiety impedes): Total solution rate % solved with insight Insight-like preparatory activity in ACC Positive mood modulates prep activity in ACC :  Positive mood modulates prep activity in ACC Insight >Non Prep activity Pos Aff>Neg in prep activ Convergence General vs specific mechanisms - Visual Aha!:  General vs specific mechanisms - Visual Aha! Slide110:  Thank you!

Add a comment

Related presentations

Related pages

Datsik + Bais Haus = Ephwurd (Q&A) | KSDT

Ephwurd, the bass house duo of Datsik (Troy Beetles) and Bais Haus (Basie Hauser), is headed down to San Diego at Bassmnt this Saturday. We caught up with ...
Read more

KSDT

Friday April 15th, 2016 @ The KSDT Radio Station. ... (Troy Beetles) and Bais Haus (Basie Hauser), is headed down to San Diego at Bassmnt this Saturday.
Read more

KSDT - UCSD College Radio

KSDT - UCSD College Radio. 708 likes · 36 talking about this. UCSD's only student-run radio station. ... (Troy Beetles) and Bais Haus (Basie Hauser), ...
Read more

KSDT - University of California, San Diego

Ephwurd, the bass house duo of Datsik (Troy Beetles) and Bais Haus (Basie Hauser), is headed down to San Diego at Bassmnt this Saturday. We caught up with ...
Read more

Bilateral brain processes for comprehending natural language

Bilateral brain processes for comprehending natural language Mark Jung-Beeman Department of Psychology, and Cognitive Brain Mapping Group, Northwestern ...
Read more

Right and left hemisphere language processing: Behavioral ...

Bilateral semantic processing: Inferences in language, insight in problem solving Mark Jung-Beeman Northwestern University Department of Psychology
Read more

October 14, 2013 Math 283 Prof. Tesler - UCSD Mathematics ...

October 14, 2013 Prof. Tesler 8.3 Maximum Likeilihood Estimation Math 283 / October 14, 2013 1 / 10. Estimating parameters Let Y be a random variable with ...
Read more

Power-Sensitive Multithreaded Architecture

Power-Sensitive Multithreaded Architecture John S. Seng Dean M. Tullsen Dept. of Computer Science and Engineering University of California, San Diego
Read more

Perceptions of Media Bias: viewing the news through ...

Perceptions of Media Bias: viewing the news through ideological cues By ... UCSD would not have been the same with you two. I wish to thank my
Read more