Effects of transcranial magnetic stimulation over the left posterior superior temporal gyrus on picture-word interference

Abstract

Word-production theories argue that during language production, a concept activates multiple lexical candidates in left temporal cortex, and the intended word is selected from this set. Evidence for theories on spoken-word production comes, for example, from the picture-word interference task, where participants name pictures superimposed by congruent (e.g., picture: rabbit, distractor “rabbit”), categorically related (e.g., distractor “sheep”), or unrelated (e.g., distractor “fork”) words. Typically, whereas congruent distractors facilitate naming, related distractors slow down picture naming relative to unrelated distractors, resulting in semantic interference. However, the neural correlates of semantic interference are debated. Previous neuroimaging studies have shown that the left mid-to-posterior STG (pSTG) is involved in the interference associated with semantically related distractors. To probe the functional relevance of this area, we targeted the left pSTG with focal repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) while subjects performed a picture-word interference task. Unexpectedly, pSTG stimulation did not affect the semantic interference effect but selectively increased the congruency effect (i.e., faster naming with congruent distractors). The facilitatory TMS effect selectively occurred in the more difficult list with an overall lower name agreement. Our study adds new evidence to the causal role of the left pSTG in the interaction between picture and distractor representations or processing streams, only partly supporting previous neuroimaging studies. Moreover, the observed unexpected condition-specific facilitatory rTMS effect argues for an interaction of the task- or stimulus-induced brain state with the modulatory TMS effect. These issues should be systematically addressed in future rTMS studies on language production.

Neural oscillations in the aging brain associated with interference control in word production

“…Specifically, by using a picture-word interference task, we examined how the mid-frontal theta, as a marker for top-down cognitive control, is modulated by different types of interference. The behavioral pattern we found in the older adults was in line with what is commonly found in young adults: Speakers are better in naming pictures with congruent than with semantically related distractors, replicating the Stroop-like interference effect (Piai et al, 2014(Piai et al, , 2020Shitova et al, 2017); they are also better in naming pictures with semantically unrelated than with related distractors, replicating the semantic interference effect (Krott et al, 2019;Lupker, 1979;Piai et al, 2014Schriefers et al, 1990). These results are also consistent with previous studies that examined picture-word interference in older populations (Graf et al, 1995;Rizio et al, 2017;Taylor & Burke, 2002).…”

Neuromodulatory effects of transcranial magnetic stimulation on language performance in healthy participants: Systematic review and meta-analysis

“…Second, it has become increasingly evident that some key language-related brain regions such as IFG and STG can be divided into finer anatomical structures specialized for different functions ( Whitney et al, 2012 ; Klaus and Hartwigsen, 2019 ; Deschamps et al, 2020 ; Piai et al, 2020 ). This brought new challenges for studies to localize the precise stimulation site for the target brain regions underlying certain functions, along with the already existing barriers regarding the limited spatial resolution of TMS (between 0.5 and 1 cm, Sliwinska et al, 2015 ) and the variance in precision of different methods of localization, leading to the failure to capture significant modulatory effects of TMS.…”

“…However, TMS effects are prone to be moderated by various factors such as tasks, target brain regions, brain state before and during stimulation, and stimulation parameters ( Vallar and Bolognini, 2011 ; Hartwigsen, 2015 ; Hartwigsen and Silvanto, 2022 ), rendering the between-study heterogeneity inflated. For instance, with regard to specific language functions, TMS could reduce the accuracy (ACC) and prolong the reaction time (RT) for semantic tasks like picture naming and synonym judgment tasks ( Whitney et al, 2012 ; Krieger-Redwood and Jefferies, 2014 ; Papeo et al, 2015 ; Klaus et al, 2020 ), whereas certain studies did not find any modulatory effects ( Hartwigsen et al, 2010 , 2016 ), or instead discovered reversed effects ( Bonnì et al, 2015 ; Piai et al, 2020 ). This was also the case for syntactic and phonological tasks, in which the results were still disputed ( Sakai et al, 2002 ; Uddén et al, 2008 , 2017 ; Hartwigsen et al, 2010 , 2016 ; Sliwinska et al, 2012 ; Acheson and Hagoort, 2013 ; Klaus and Hartwigsen, 2019 ; Deschamps et al, 2020 ; Ishkhanyan et al, 2020 ).…”