Psy1306 language and thought
Download
1 / 54

Psy1306 Language and Thought - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 106 Views
  • Uploaded on

Psy1306 Language and Thought. Lectures 4 Color Lateralization. Language in the brain. Contralateral Control (as opposed to ipsilateral control). Lateralization: Left vs. Right Hemisphere.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Psy1306 Language and Thought' - ross-norris


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Psy1306 language and thought

Psy1306 Language and Thought

Lectures 4

Color Lateralization


Contralateral control as opposed to ipsilateral control

Language in the brain

Contralateral Control(as opposed to ipsilateral control)

Lateralization: Left vs. Right Hemisphere

  • 1860s: investigators apply electric currents to brains of anesthetized animals and made an interesting discovery.

Right Brain

Left Brain

Left Body

Right Body


Split brain research sperry gazzaniga etc

Language in the brain

Split-Brain Research(Sperry, Gazzaniga, etc.)

Lateralization: Left vs. Right Hemisphere

  • Surgically Lesioned Corpus Callosum

    • “cure” for epilepsy

  • Post-surgery:

    • Normal Behavior


Testing split brain patient

Language in the brain

Testing Split-Brain Patient

Lateralization: Left vs. Right Hemisphere

General Testing Setup.


Name that object picture in rvf

Language in the brain

Name that object (picture in RVF)

Lateralization: Left vs. Right Hemisphere

Patient says: “Spoon!”


Language in the brain

Lateralization: Left vs. Right Hemisphere

Name that object(picture in LVF)

Patient: (says nothing)

Researcher: “Did you see any thing?”

Patient: “Nope.”


Language in the brain

Lateralization: Left vs. Right Hemisphere

Right Visual Field

Left Visual Field

Right Brain

Left Brain

Left Body

Right Body


Pick up the object displayed

Language in the brain

Right Hand: Pulls out Spoon!

Left Hand does nothing

Pick up the object displayed

Lateralization: Left vs. Right Hemisphere


Language in the brain

Left Hand: Pulls out Spoon!

Right hand does nothing

Pick up the object displayed

Lateralization: Left vs. Right Hemisphere


Lh rationalizing behavior of rh

Language in the brain

LH rationalizing behavior of RH

Lateralization: Left vs. Right Hemisphere


Typical split brain patient

Language in the brain

Typical Split Brain Patient

Lateralization: Left vs. Right Hemisphere

  • Left Brain:

    • Normal Language Use

      • Speaking and listening

  • No easily detectable deficits.

  • Right Brain:

    • Some rudimentary word recognition.


  • Split brain patient and dichotic listening

    Language in the brain

    Split-brain patient and Dichotic Listening

    Lateralization: Left vs. Right Hemisphere

    What does the patient report hearing in all three cases?


    A man with two brains

    Language in the brain

    A Man with Two Brains

    Lateralization: Left vs. Right Hemisphere

    • http://www.pbs.org/perl/media.cgir?t=w&f=virage/scientific/pbssaf703_220k.asf&s=173000&e=780266

    With communication between his left and right hemispheres severed, a patient teaches doctors about the division of labor within the brain.


    American sign language asl

    Language in the brain

    American Sign Language (ASL)

    Lateralization: Left vs. Right Hemisphere

    • Deaf Signers with Left Hemisphere Damage:

      • Language Deficit. Aphasic.

    • Deaf Signers with Right Hemisphere Damage:

      • Visio-Spatial Deficits.

      • No easily detectable language deficits.

    • Left Hemisphere implicated in Language

    Poizner, Klima, & Bellugi (1987)


    Native asl signers rh vs lh damage

    Language in the brain

    Native ASL Signers – RH vs. LH damage

    Lateralization: Left vs. Right Hemisphere

    Hickok et al. (1998)


    Native asl signers rh vs lh damage1

    Language in the brain

    Comparisons on:

    Production

    Comprehension

    Phrase repetition Test

    Naming Test

    Rhyming Test

    Paraphasias/min (#speech error/min)

    Native ASL Signers – RH vs. LH damage

    Lateralization: Left vs. Right Hemisphere

    Hickok et al. (1996)


    Functions of the hemispheres

    Language in the brain

    Left Hemisphere

    Rapid language processing

    Lexical, syntactic processing

    Phonemic processing

    Right Hemisphere

    Higher level processing

    Discourse processing

    Prosodic information

    Functions of the Hemispheres

    Lateralization: Left vs. Right Hemisphere


    Language in the brain

    Lateralization: Left vs. Right Hemisphere

    Summary: Brain and modularity

    • Patient data provide evidence that there are regions of the brain associated with language processing

    • Data from normals corroborate brain damage data

    • The evidence is suggestive of brain modularity – i.e. specialized areas for processing language.


    When does lateralization emerge

    Language in the brain

    When does lateralization emerge?

    Lateralization: Emergence

    • Quickly within the first few years of life.

      • Dichotic listening task (Kimura,1963):

        • 4-6 yr-olds show right-ear advantage

      • EEG/ERP data (Neville et al.)

        • 4-6 yr-olds

      • High-amplitude sucking (Bertoncini et al. 1989):

        • Neonates (4-day-olds)

          • Right-ear advantage for syllable change

          • Left-ear advantage for musical tone change


    When does lateralization emerge1

    Language in the brain

    http://www.pbs.org/perl/media.cgir?t=w&f=virage/scientific/pbssaf703_220k.asf&s=2677776&e=3334066

    Videoclip touches upon:

    EEG/ERP technology

    Lateralization emergence

    Critical Period in Second Language Acquisition

    Issues of Plasticity

    Competition of processes

    When does lateralization emerge?

    Lateralization: Emergence


    Winawer witthoft frank wu wade boroditsky 2007
    Winawer, Witthoft, Frank, Wu, Wade, Boroditsky (2007)

    • Pinker: Most of the experiments have tested banal “weak” versions of the Whorfian hypothesis, namely that words can have some effect on memory or categorization….


    Winawer witthoft frank wu wade boroditsky 20071
    Winawer, Witthoft, Frank, Wu, Wade, Boroditsky (2007)

    Goluboy (light blue)

    Siniy (dark blue)


    Gilbert a regier t kay p ivry r 2006
    Gilbert, A., Regier, T., Kay, P., & Ivry, R. (2006)

    • Pre-screen participants by color naming.

    • Actual Task: Detect discrepant color and press button for L-R side.





    What does the result say
    What does the result say:

    • Eliminate lateralized effect

      • Linguistic categories are activated on-line (i.e., against learning warping perceptual space)

      • Though still unanswered: is the effect during perception or post-perceptual?




    Dog and cat stimuli

    (Gilbert, A., Regier, T., Kay, P., & Ivry, R. Brain and Language, in press)


    Fig. 2. Sample display for the visual search task [as in BERKELEY EXP. 1] with a between-categories stimulus pair. Participants were required to press one of two response keys, indicating the side containing the target. (Gilbert, A., Regier, T., Kay, P., & Ivry, R. Brain and Language, in press)


    Fig. 6. Visual search task results from callosotomy patient testing. Error bars show 95% confidence limits. (Gilbert, A., Regier, T., Kay, P., & Ivry, R. Brain and Language, in press)


    What about other languages? Two early reports. testing. Error bars show 95% confidence limits.


    Roberson pak hanley 2008
    Roberson, Pak, & Hanley (2008) testing. Error bars show 95% confidence limits.


    (Source: Roberson, D. testing. Error bars show 95% confidence limits. et al., Categorical perception of colour in the left visual field is verbally mediated. Cognition (2007), doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2007.09.001.)


    Moreover… testing. Error bars show 95% confidence limits.

    VF to Brain Hemisphere inference has been confirmed in an Event-Related Potential (ERP) study using the same stimuli as in BERKELEY EXPS. 1 & 2.


    + testing. Error bars show 95% confidence limits.

    +

    +

    Standard

    Standard

    200 ms

    200 ms

    +

    +

    Fixation

    Fixation

    [800

    [800

    -

    -

    1200 ms]

    1200 ms]

    +

    +

    +

    Cross

    Cross

    -

    -

    category

    category

    LVF deviant

    LVF deviant

    +

    +

    200 ms

    200 ms

    Fixation

    Fixation

    +

    +

    +

    [800

    [800

    -

    -

    1200 ms]

    1200 ms]

    Standard

    Standard

    +

    +

    200 ms

    200 ms

    Fixation

    Fixation

    [800

    [800

    -

    -

    1200 ms]

    1200 ms]

    o

    o

    o

    Target

    Target

    200 ms

    200 ms

    +

    +

    Fixation

    Fixation

    [800

    [800

    -

    -

    1200 ms]

    1200 ms]

    +

    +

    +

    Standard

    Standard

    200 ms

    200 ms

    +

    +

    Fixation

    Fixation

    [800

    [800

    -

    -

    1200 ms]

    1200 ms]

    +

    +

    +

    Within

    Within

    -

    -

    category

    category

    RVF deviant

    RVF deviant

    200 ms

    200 ms

    EEG experiment protocol. Aubrey Gilbert’s Dissertation (Berkeley, 2007).


    Figure 3. Grand-averaged ERPs to standard (in black) and each of the deviant stimuli. The only deviant to evoke ERPs with significant differences from those evoked by standard stimuli was the cross-category deviant (in red) and these differences only occurred when this deviant was presented in the RVF. The significant differences of note are an earlier (~150-300 ms) increased negativity at occipital and extrastriate sites that is lateralized mostly to the LH, and a later (~400-700 ms) increased negativity at frontal sites that is observed bilaterally.


    Tan chan kay khong et al
    Tan, Chan, Kay, each of the deviant stimuli. The only deviant to evoke ERPs with significant differences from those evoked by standard stimuli was the cross-category deviant (in red) and these differences only occurred when this deviant was presented in the RVF. The significant differences of note are an earlier (~150-300 ms) increased negativity at occipital and extrastriate sites that is lateralized mostly to the LH, and a later (~400-700 ms) increased negativity at frontal sites that is observed bilaterally.Khong et al.


    Tan et al. 2008 each of the deviant stimuli. The only deviant to evoke ERPs with significant differences from those evoked by standard stimuli was the cross-category deviant (in red) and these differences only occurred when this deviant was presented in the RVF. The significant differences of note are an earlier (~150-300 ms) increased negativity at occipital and extrastriate sites that is lateralized mostly to the LH, and a later (~400-700 ms) increased negativity at frontal sites that is observed bilaterally.. Language affects patterns of brain activation associated with perceptual decision. PNAS 105.10.4004-9.


    Tan et each of the deviant stimuli. The only deviant to evoke ERPs with significant differences from those evoked by standard stimuli was the cross-category deviant (in red) and these differences only occurred when this deviant was presented in the RVF. The significant differences of note are an earlier (~150-300 ms) increased negativity at occipital and extrastriate sites that is lateralized mostly to the LH, and a later (~400-700 ms) increased negativity at frontal sites that is observed bilaterally.al. 2008. Language affects patterns of brain activation associated with perceptual decision. PNAS 105.10.4004-9.

    “Crucially, perceptual discrimination of easy-to-name colors evoked stronger activation in … two regions responsible for word finding processes…. This finding suggests that the language processing areas of the brain are directly involved in visual perceptual decision, thus providing neuroimaging support for the Whorf hypothesis.”

    from the abstract


    Infants franklin et al 2008
    INFANTS? Franklin et al. (2008) each of the deviant stimuli. The only deviant to evoke ERPs with significant differences from those evoked by standard stimuli was the cross-category deviant (in red) and these differences only occurred when this deviant was presented in the RVF. The significant differences of note are an earlier (~150-300 ms) increased negativity at occipital and extrastriate sites that is lateralized mostly to the LH, and a later (~400-700 ms) increased negativity at frontal sites that is observed bilaterally.


    The category effect for adults is significant in both visual fields, but is larger in the RVF than in the LVF


    ad