MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2896467738 · doi:10.1101/449157

Lexical Access in Comprehension vs. Production: Spatiotemporal Localization of Semantic Facilitation and Interference

2018· preprint· en· W2896467738 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Julien Dirani, Liina Pylkkänen

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2018
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersYork UniversityNew York University Abu Dhabi
KeywordsLanguage productionLexiconFacilitationComprehensionMagnetoencephalographySpeech productionMental lexiconPriming (agriculture)Cognitive psychologyPsychologyObject (grammar)Semantics (computer science)Semantic memorySemantic similarityContrast (vision)Computer scienceNatural language processingArtificial intelligenceCognitionSpeech recognitionNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Humans understand words faster when they are preceded by semantically related words. This facilitation is thought to result from spreading activation between words with similar meanings. Interestingly, in language production, semantic relatedness often has the opposite effect: in object naming for example, a related prior word delays the naming time of the current object. This could be due to competition during conceptual search or later interference at the motor preparation stage. However, no study has systematically compared the facilitory and inhibitory effects and thus their neurobiological relationship is unknown. We contrasted maximally parallel production and comprehension tasks during magnetoencephalography and found that in comprehension (specifically word reading), semantic relatedness modulated activity in the left middle STG at 180-335ms, consistent with prior findings on the spatiotemporal localization of lexical access. In contrast, a semantic interference pattern for the production task (object naming) occurred in a post-lexical time-window at 395-485ms in left posterior insular cortex, consistent with post-lexical motor preparation. Thus, our data show that semantic priming during comprehension and interference during production are not two sides of the same coin but rather they clearly dissociate in space and time, consistent with a lexical account for comprehension and a post-lexical one for production. Significance statement The processing of semantically related words has been a central tool for understanding the organization of the mental lexicon. One striking observation is that semantic relatedness tends to be facilitory in comprehension but inhibitory in language production, perhaps because only production involves a conceptual search through semantically related candidates. The neurobiology of this contrast is not understood. Our magnetoencephalography results demonstrate that the facilitory pattern is first observed in classic left temporal lexical access regions at ~200ms, whereas the inhibitory pattern occurs later and in the insular cortex. These findings show that the two effects do not co-localize in space or time and suggest that the inhibitory effects in production stem from a late motor preparation stage.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.241 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism→French-language works237,207→