Action relevance in linguistic context drives word-induced motor activity

Abstract

Many neurocognitive studies on the role of motor structures in action-language processing have implicitly adopted a “dictionary-like” framework within which lexical meaning is constructed on the basis of an invariant set of semantic features. The debate has thus been centered on the question of whether motor activation is an integral part of the lexical semantics (embodied theories) or the result of a post-lexical construction of a situation model (disembodied theories). However, research in psycholinguistics show that lexical semantic processing and context-dependent meaning construction are narrowly integrated. An understanding of the role of motor structures in action-language processing might thus be better achieved by focusing on the linguistic contexts under which such structures are recruited. Here, we therefore analyzed online modulations of grip force while subjects listened to target words embedded in different linguistic contexts. When the target word was a hand action verb and when the sentence focused on that action (John signs the contract) an early increase of grip force was observed. No comparable increase was detected when the same word occurred in a context that shifted the focus toward the agent's mental state (John wants to sign the contract). There mere presence of an action word is thus not sufficient to trigger motor activation. Moreover, when the linguistic context set up a strong expectation for a hand action, a grip force increase was observed even when the tested word was a pseudo-verb. The presence of a known action word is thus not required to trigger motor activation. Importantly, however, the same linguistic contexts that sufficed to trigger motor activation with pseudo-verbs failed to trigger motor activation when the target words were verbs with no motor action reference. Context is thus not by itself sufficient to supersede an “incompatible” word meaning. We argue that motor structure activation is part of a dynamic process that integrates the lexical meaning potential of a term and the context in the online construction of a situation model, which is a crucial process for fluent and efficient online language comprehension.

A simple technique to study embodied language processes: the grip force sensor

“…In line with our previous findings (Aravena et al, 2012;Aravena et al, 2014;Frak et al, 2010), the present results confirm that the processing of action words within a sentential context focused on body action provokes a sustained increase in grip force levels starting within the first 300-ms period after word onset-that is, within the time frames associated in the model proposed by Friederici (2002) with the retrieval of word form and word category. Note that the rather early onset of these effects is in line with studies in which event-related potentials have been analyzed during spoken sentence processing.…”

“…Justifications for these criteria are given in the BResults and discussion^section. Following Aravena et al (2014;Aravena et al, 2012), to evaluate the time course of language-induced motor activation, we drew on an influential neurophysiological model of spoken sentence comprehension by Friederici (2002). According to this model, information about syntactic structure is formed in a first phase on the basis of information about word category approximately 100-300 ms after word onset.…”

“…The continuous control of grip force is thus well understood in terms of its neurophysiological regulation, and the usefulness of grip force assessment in clinical diagnosis and pediatrics has long been established (e.g., Delevoye-Turrell, Giersch, & Danion, 2003; Nowak & Hermsdörfer, 2006;Rauch et al, 2002). By monitoring grip force in healthy individuals, our team recently revealed that subtle but selective grip force variations could be seen during the processing of language that refers to motor actions (Aravena et al, 2014;Aravena et al, 2012;Frak et al, 2010). In these studies, participants listened to individual spoken words or sentences while holding a grip force sensor that continuously monitored grip force variations throughout the experiment.…”

Are the motor features of verb meanings represented in the precentral motor cortices? Yes, but within the context of a flexible, multilevel architecture for conceptual knowledge

“…These studies, among many others (e.g., Sato et al, 2008;Mirabella et al, 2012;Aravena et al, 2012Aravena et al, , 2014, suggest that verb-induced motor activation is not a rigid, inflexible affair, but is instead sensitive to attentional and situational factors that we are only beginning to understand. It is essential to realize, however, that the mere fact that there is some variability regarding when and how the motor features of verb meanings are retrieved does not imply that those features are not really long-term components of the concepts or that they are not really subserved by the precentral motor cortices.…”

Visual and Motor Features of the Meanings of Action Verbs: A Cognitive Neuroscience Perspective

“…Finally, as an illustration of nonlinguistic context effects, in an fMRI study Papeo et al (2012) found that not only action verbs but also purely stative verbs significantly recruited the motor cortex in certain circumstances-specifically, when they were encountered after subjects first performed a mental rotation task using a motor-oriented rather than a visuospatially oriented strategy. Taken together, these studies, among many others (e.g., Mirabella et al 2012;Aravena et al 2012Aravena et al , 2014Schuil et al 2013), suggest that verb-induced motor activation is by no means a rigid, inflexible affair, but is instead quite sensitive to attentional and situational factors (for a broader perspective, see Lebois et al in press).…”