Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015:2015:475271.
doi: 10.1155/2015/475271. Epub 2015 Jul 12.

Processing Sentences with Literal versus Figurative Use of Verbs: An ERP Study with Children with Language Impairments, Nonverbal Impairments, and Typical Development

Maria Luisa Lorusso  1 , Michele Burigo  1 , Virginia Borsa  2 , Massimo Molteni  1
Affiliations

Processing Sentences with Literal versus Figurative Use of Verbs: An ERP Study with Children with Language Impairments, Nonverbal Impairments, and Typical Development

Maria Luisa Lorusso et al. Behav Neurol. 2015.

Abstract

Forty native Italian children (age 6-15) performed a sentence plausibility judgment task. ERP recordings were available for 12 children with specific language impairment (SLI), 11 children with nonverbal learning disabilities (NVLD), and 13 control children. Participants listened to verb-object combinations and judged them as acceptable or unacceptable. Stimuli belonged to four conditions, where concreteness and congruency were manipulated. All groups made more errors responding to abstract and to congruent sentences. Moreover, SLI participants performed worse than NVLD participants with abstract sentences. ERPs were analyzed in the time window 300-500 ms. SLI children show atypical, reversed effects of concreteness and congruence as compared to control and NVLD children, respectively. The results suggest that linguistic impairments disrupt abstract language processing more than visual-motor impairments. Moreover, ROI and SPM analyses of ERPs point to a predominant involvement of the left rather than the right hemisphere in the comprehension of figurative expressions.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Mean accuracy scores for concrete and abstract verb-object combinations in the three groups. Error bars represent standard errors.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Mean accuracy scores for the concreteness × congruency interaction in the whole group. Error bars represent standard errors.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Mean amplitudes of ERPs elicited in the left, central, and right ROIs, in the whole group. Error bars represent standard errors.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Mean amplitudes of ERPs elicited by concrete and abstract stimuli in the three groups. Error bars represent standard errors.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Mean amplitudes of ERPs elicited by congruent and incongruent stimuli in the three groups. Error bars represent standard errors.
Figure 6
Figure 6
(a) Pattern of brain activity for abstract-incongruent and concrete-incongruent combinations. (b) ERP responses to abstract-incongruent (blue line) and concrete-incongruent (green line) objects for the control group, on left and central sites.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Patterns of brain activation in response to abstract- versus concrete-incongruent stimuli, in the control group and in the SLI group.
Figure 8
Figure 8
Patterns of brain activation in response to concrete-congruent versus concrete-incongruent stimuli, in the control group.
Figure 9
Figure 9
ERP recordings corresponding to concrete-congruent and concrete-incongruent stimuli in the SLI group, in left parietal (P3) and frontal (F7) sites.
Figure 10
Figure 10
Across-groups SPM contrasts. (a) Control group versus NVLD. (b) SLI versus control. (c) SLI versus NVLD.
Figure 11
Figure 11
Patterns of brain activation in response to abstract-incongruent versus abstract-congruent stimuli, in the SLI group.
Figure 12
Figure 12
SPM contrasts for the congruency effect within abstract trials, in the two clinical groups.
Figure 13
Figure 13
Mean amplitudes of ERP responses in the four conditions, for the three groups, on central sites (300–500 ms period), summarizing concreteness (AIC versus CIC), congruency (CC versus CIC), and figurativity (AC versus AIC) effects. AC: abstract-congruent; AIC: abstract-incongruent; CC: concrete-congruent; CIC: concrete-incongruent. Error bars represent standard errors.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Fisher C., Gleitman L. R. Language acquisition. In: Pashler H., Gallistel R., editors. Steven's Handbook of Experimental Psychology. New York, NY, USA: John Wiley & Sons; 2002. pp. 445–496.
    1. Landauer T. K., Dumais S. T. A solution to Plato's problem: the latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review. 1997;104(2):211–240. doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.104.2.211. - DOI
    1. Tenenbaum J. B., Xu F. Word learning as Bayesian inference. In: Bara B. G., Barsalou L., Bucciarelli M., editors. Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society; 2000; Mahwah, NJ, USA. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; pp. 2381–2386.
    1. Barsalou L. W. Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 1999;22(4):577–660. doi: 10.1017/s0140525x99002149. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Barsalou L. W., Wiemer-Hastings K. Situating abstract concepts. In: Pecher D., Zwaan R., editors. Grounding Cognition: The Role of Perception and Action in Memory, Language, and Thought. New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press; 2005. pp. 129–163.

LinkOut - more resources