Faculty of Education, Bar Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel.
The Program of Cognitive Studies of Language Use and Sagol School of Neuroscience, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Brain Cogn. 2024 Nov;181:106212. doi: 10.1016/j.bandc.2024.106212. Epub 2024 Sep 4.
Readers frequently encounter homographs (e.g., bank) whose resolution requires selection-suppression processes: selecting the contextually relevant meaning, while suppressing the irrelevant one. In two experiments, we investigated how these processes are modulated by the phonological status of the homograph (homographs with one vs. two possible pronunciations); and what is the involvement of the left inferior frontal gyrus (LIFG, including Broca's area) in these processes. To these ends, Experiment 1 utilized the context verification task with two types of Hebrew homographs: homophonic (e.g., bank) and heterophonic (e.g., tear). In the task, participants read sentences ending either with a homograph (e.g., bank) or an unambiguous word (e.g., shore). The sentences were biased towards the homograph's subordinate meaning (e.g., The fisherman sat on the bank/shore), and were followed by a target word related to the homograph's dominant meaning (e.g., MONEY). The participants were asked to judge whether the target was related to the overall meaning of the sentence. An ambiguity effect was observed for both types of homographs, reflecting interference from the irrelevant dominant meaning. However, this ambiguity effect was larger for heterophonic than for homophonic homographs, indicating that dominant meanings of heterophonic homographs are more difficult to suppress. Experiment 2 was identical, except that the procedure was coupled with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over the LIFG (including Broca's area). We found that stimulating the LIFG abolished the ambiguity effect, but only in the case of heterophonic homographs. Together, these findings highlight the distinction between phonological and semantic levels of selection-suppression processes, and the involvement of the LIFG in the phonological level of these processes.
读者经常会遇到同音异义词(例如,bank),其含义的确定需要选择抑制过程:选择上下文相关的含义,同时抑制不相关的含义。在两项实验中,我们研究了这些过程如何受到同音异义词的语音状态(具有一个或两个可能发音的同音异义词)的调节;以及左侧额下回(LIFG,包括布罗卡区)在这些过程中的参与情况。为此,实验 1 使用了两种类型的希伯来语同音异义词的语境验证任务:同音异义词(例如,bank)和异音同音异义词(例如,tear)。在任务中,参与者阅读以同音异义词(例如,bank)或非歧义词(例如,shore)结尾的句子。句子偏向于同音异义词的次要含义(例如,渔夫坐在 bank/shore 上),然后是与同音异义词的主要含义相关的目标词(例如,MONEY)。要求参与者判断目标词是否与句子的整体含义相关。对于两种类型的同音异义词都观察到了歧义效应,这反映了对无关主要含义的干扰。然而,异音同音异义词的歧义效应比同音异义词更大,这表明异音同音异义词的主要含义更难以抑制。实验 2 是相同的,只是程序与 LIFG(包括布罗卡区)的经颅直流电刺激(tDCS)相结合。我们发现刺激 LIFG 消除了歧义效应,但仅在异音同音异义词的情况下。这些发现共同强调了选择抑制过程的语音和语义水平之间的区别,以及 LIFG 在这些过程的语音水平中的参与。