2005
DOI: 10.1162/0898929053747658
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Emotional and Temporal Aspects of Situation Model Processing during Text Comprehension: An Event-Related fMRI Study

Abstract: Abstract& Language comprehension in everyday life requires the continuous integration of prior discourse context and general world knowledge with the current utterance or sentence. In the neurolinguistic literature, these so-called situation model building processes have been ascribed to the prefrontal cortex or to the right hemisphere. In this study, we use whole-head event-related fMRI to directly map the neural correlates of narrative comprehension in context. While being scanned using a spin-echo sequence,… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

24
184
0
4

Year Published

2007
2007
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 274 publications
(212 citation statements)
references
References 88 publications
24
184
0
4
Order By: Relevance
“…Combined, these two regions play a key role in discourse processing. This network has been found to be activated in Theory of Mind tasks (Castelli et al, 2002;Gallagher & Frith, 2003;Greene, Sommerville, Nystrom, Darley, & Cohen, 2001;Martin & Weisberg, 2003;Moll, de Oliveira-Souza, Bramati, & Grafman, 2002), as well as discourse comprehension tasks (Bottini et al, 1994;Eviatar & Just, 2006;Ferstl & von Cramon, 2001Ferstl, Rinck, & von Cramon, 2005;Nichelli et al, 1995;Xu, Kemeny, Park, Frattali, & Braun, 2005). Mason and Just (2006) attribute activation in this network to Protagonist monitoring.…”
Section: Disruption Of the Protagonist Monitoring/theory Of Mind Netwmentioning
confidence: 96%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Combined, these two regions play a key role in discourse processing. This network has been found to be activated in Theory of Mind tasks (Castelli et al, 2002;Gallagher & Frith, 2003;Greene, Sommerville, Nystrom, Darley, & Cohen, 2001;Martin & Weisberg, 2003;Moll, de Oliveira-Souza, Bramati, & Grafman, 2002), as well as discourse comprehension tasks (Bottini et al, 1994;Eviatar & Just, 2006;Ferstl & von Cramon, 2001Ferstl, Rinck, & von Cramon, 2005;Nichelli et al, 1995;Xu, Kemeny, Park, Frattali, & Braun, 2005). Mason and Just (2006) attribute activation in this network to Protagonist monitoring.…”
Section: Disruption Of the Protagonist Monitoring/theory Of Mind Netwmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…Neuroimaging research with typical individuals suggests that whereas there are many lower level processes involved in discourse comprehension (such as language processing at the word and sentence levels), discourse critically involves processing at higher levels (Ferstl, 2006;Ferstl, Neumann, Bogler, & von Cramon, 2007). We have proposed a model of approximately five Parallel Networks of Discourse (Mason & Just, 2006) that process figurative and meta-sentence level information during discourse comprehension.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Previous fMRI studies of narrative comprehension have focused largely on mean-level differences between coherent and incoherent language conditions (but see e.g., Ferstl et al, 2005;Xu et al, 2005); however, most psychological models of situation model processing explicitly assert that the processing demands associated with narrative comprehension vary over time and reflect distinct cognitive functions. One important functional distinction is between foundation-laying processes associated with the initial construction of a situation model and information-mapping processes involved in subsequent updating of that model based on incoming information (Gernsbacher, 1990).…”
Section: Dissociable Brain Systems Support the Construction And Maintmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Most commonly, narrative-level mechanisms are isolated by contrasting brain activation when reading connected sentences or stories with activation when reading sentences or stories that are unrelated or inconsistent to varying degrees (e.g., Ferstl et al, 2005;Ferstl andvon Cramon, 2001, 2002;Fletcher et al, 1995;Giraud, 2000;Hasson et al, 2007;Vogeley et al, 2001;Xu et al, 2005). The results of such investigations converge on a distributed network of cortical regions subserving discourse-level comprehension.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Following such an account, increased responses may be observed in brain regions that subserve knowledge-based, non-automatic inferences that require the use of general world knowledge and/or discourse information (e.g., Ferstl, in press;Ferstl and Siebörger, 2007, for reviews). These regions include medial frontal (BA 8/9/10) and parietal (BA 7/23/31) cortices (e.g., Ferstl andvon Cramon, 2001, 2002;Ferstl et al, 2005;Kuperberg et al, 2006;Maguire et al, 1999;Volz et al, 2006a,b;Zysset et al, 2002Zysset et al, , 2003, but also right lateral prefrontal (BA 8/9/ 10/46) and bilateral parietal regions (BA 39/40) involved in monitoring and evaluating of memory retrieval outcomes (e.g., Buckner and Wheeler, 2001;Wagner et al, 2005). 1 For referential failure (compared to referential coherence), we predicted that the brain treats referentially failing pronouns as morpho-syntactic violations in the first instance (e.g., Osterhout and Mobley, 1995;Van Berkum et al, 2007), eliciting activity increases in left middle/superior and inferior frontal (BA 6/8/44, Hammer et al, 2007;Newman et al, 2001;Ni et al, 2000), and medial and bilateral parietal regions (BA 7/23/31/40; Kuperberg et al, 2003;Ni et al, 2000).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%