바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

ISSN : 1226-9654

Article Contents

Prev Next
e-Submission

Vol.23 No.3

Citation Share

Interference Effect of Language Stimuli on Response Action: An ERP study

The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology / The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, (P)1226-9654; (E)2733-466X
2011, v.23 no.3, pp.393-409
https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2011.23.3.006



& (2011). Interference Effect of Language Stimuli on Response Action: An ERP study. The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, 23(3), 393-409, https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2011.23.3.006

Abstract

The purpose of the present study was to investigate the influence of motor simulation during understanding of action phrases on the actual motor execution using behavior response measures and electroencephalogram (EEG). Subjects were trained to produce one of two action responses depending on the color of a cue stimulus(yellow - pressing a button, blue-stepping on a pedal). In the main experiment, the stimuli directing each action response were embedded in the action phrases, “press a button” and “step on a pedal”, or in several meaningless symbols(e.g., &&& &&&), and participants were instructed to disregard the semantic meaning of the stimuli and instead to respond according to their color. Experimental conditions consisted of congruent, incongruent, and neutral conditions regarding the correspondence of the semantic meaning of the stimuli with the action response required by their color. The analysis of behavior responses showed a typical Stroop effect with facilitation for congruent trials and interference for incongruent trials in comparison to neutral trials. For analysis of EEG data, event-related potentials(ERPs) were computed for a time window of-100 to 800ms relative to the presentation time of the stimuli. The ERP results showed that the action phrase decreased positivity during the time window 150–250ms and increased negativity from 450–550ms. Interference between the congruent condition and the incongruent condition were observed in the time window of 450-550ms. Our results indicate that motor simulation during action understanding occurs very rapidly and automatically, and then evokes facilitation and interference later according to its correspondence to the following action execution. Therefore, our results support the Embodied Cognition theories which claim that language understanding is based on the simulation of sensory-motor information, and dynamically interacts with current sensory-motor behavior.

keywords
운동 피질, 뇌파, 사건전위분석, 스트룹 효과, 체화된 인지, motor cortex, EEG, ERP, Stroop effect, Embodied cognition

Reference

1.

Aziz-Zadeh L, Iacoboni M, Zaidel E, Wilson S, & Mazziotta J (2004). Left hemisphere motor facilitation in response to manual action sounds. Eur. J. Neurosci, 19(9), 2609-12.

2.

Aziz-Zadeh, L., & Damasio, A. (2008). Embodied semantics for actions: Findings from functional brain imaging. Journal of Physiology-Paris, 102 (1-3), 35-39.

3.

Baber H. A, & Kutas M (2007). Interplay between computational models and cognitive electrophysiology in visual word recognition. Brain Research Reviews, 53(1), 98-123.

4.

Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 59, 617-645.

5.

Barsalou, L. W. (2009). Simulation, situated conceptualization, and prediction. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond., B, Biol. Sci. 364, 1281-1289.

6.

Borghi, A. M., and Scorolli, C. (2009). Language comprehension and hand motion simulation. Hum. Mov. Sci. 28, 12-27.

7.

Boulenger V, Roy AC, Paulignan Y, Deprez V, & Jeannerod M, Nazir TA. (2006). Cross-talk between language processes and overt motor behavior in the first 200 ms of processing. J Cogn Neurosci, 18(10), 1607-1615.

8.

Buccino G, Riggio L, Melli G, Binkofski F, Gallese V, & Rizzolatti G (2005). Listening to action related sentences modulates the activity of the motor system: a combined TMS and behavioral study. Cogn. Brain Res, 24, 355 -363.

9.

Duncan-Johnson, C. C., & Kopell, B. S. (1981). The Stroop effect: Brain potentials localize the source of interference. Science, 214, 938- 940.

10.

Fischer, M., and Zwaan, R. (2008). Embodied language: a review of the role of the motor system in language comprehension. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 61, 825-850.

11.

Gallese, V., & Lakoff, G. (2005). The brain’s concepts: The role of the sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22, 455-479.

12.

Glenberg M, & Michael P. Kaschak (2002). Grounding language in action. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(3), 558-565.

13.

Hanslmayr, S., Pastotter, B., Bauml, K. H., Gruber, S., Wimber, M., & Klimesch, W. (2008). The electrophysiological dynamics of interference during the Stroop task. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20, 215-225

14.

Hauk O, Johnsrude I, & Pulvermuller F (2004). Somatotopic Representation of Action Words in Human Motor and Premotor Cortex. Neuron, 41, 301-307.

15.

Hauk O, Keil A, Elbert T, & Muller M.M. (2002). Comparison of data transformation procedures to enhance topographical accuracy in time-series analysis of the human EEG. J. Neurosci. Methods, 113(2), 111-122.

16.

Hauk O, Shtyrov Y, & Pulvermuller F (2008). The time course of action and action-word comprehension in the human brain as revealed by neurophysiology. J. Physiol. Paris, 102(1-3), 50-58.

17.

Ilan, A. B., & Polich, J. (1999). P300 and response time from a manual Stroop task. Clinical Neurophysiology, 110, 367-373.

18.

Kutas M, & Hillyard SA (1980). Event-related brain potentials to semantically inapproriate and surprisingly large words. Biol Psychol, 11(2), 99-116.

19.

Kutas M, & Hillyard SA (1984). Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association. Nature, 307, 161-163.

20.

Liotti, M., Woldorff, M. G., Perez, R., & Mayberg, H. S. (2000). An ERP study of the temporal course of the Stroop color-word interference effect. Neuropsychologia, 38, 701 -711.

21.

MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 163-203.

22.

Markela-Lerenc, J., Ille, N., Kaiser, S., Fiedler, P., Mundt, C., & Weisbrod, M. (2004). Prefrontal-cingulate activation during executive control: Which comes first Cognitive. Brain Research, 18, 278-287.

23.

Pulvermüller F, Härle M, & Hummel F (2001). Walking or talking? Behavioral and neurophysiological correlates of action verb processing. Brain Lang, 78(2), 143-168.

24.

Rebai, M., Bernard, C., & Lannou, J. (1997). The Stroop’s test evokes a negative brain potential, the N400. International Journal of Neuroscience, 91, 85-94.

25.

Rizzolatti G, Fadiga L, Gallese V, & Fogassi L (1996). Premotor cortex and the recognition of motor actions. Brain Res. Cogn. Brain Res, 3(2), 131-141.

26.

Rizzolatti, G., and Craighero, L. (2004). The mirror neuron system. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 27, 169-192.

27.

Rosenfeld, J. P., & Skogsberg, K. R. (2006). P300-based Stroop study with low probability and target Stroop oddballs: The evidence still favors the response selection hypothesis. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 60, 240 -250.

28.

Sato, M., Mengarelli, M., Riggio, L., Gallese, V., and Buccino, G. (2008). Task related modulation of the motor system during language processing. Brain Lang. 105, 83-90.

29.

Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643-662.

30.

Tettamanti M, Buccino G, Saccuman MC, Gallese V, Danna M, Scifo P, Fazio F, Rizzolatti G, Cappa SF, & Perani D. (2005). Listening to action-related sentences activates fronto-parietal motor circuits. J Cogn Neurosci, 17(2), 273 -281.

31.

Xiao, X., Zhang, Q., Jia, L., Zhang, Y., & Luo, J. (2010). Temporal course of cognitive control in a picture-word interference task. Neuroreport, 21(2), 104.

32.

Zwaan RA, & Taylor LJ (2006). Seeing, acting, understanding: motor resonance in language comprehension. J Exp Psychol Gen, 135(1), 1- 11.

The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology

e-Submission OA Policy