Advertisement

Differences and Interactions Between Cerebral Hemispheres When Processing Ambiguous Words

  • Orna Peleg
  • Zohar Eviatar
  • Hananel Hazan
  • Larry Manevitz
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4840)

Abstract

It is well known that the brain (especially the cortex) is structurally separable into two hemispheres. Many neuropsychological studies show that the process of ambiguity resolution requires the intact functioning of both cerebral hemispheres. Moreover, these studies suggest that while the Left Hemisphere (LH) quickly selects one alternative, the Right Hemisphere (RH) maintains alternate meanings. However, these hemispheres are connected through the corpus callosum and presumably the exchange of information is useful. In addition, many works show that the Left Hemisphere (LH) is more influenced by the phonological aspect of written words whereas lexical processing in the Right Hemisphere (RH) is more sensitive to visual form.This distinction suggests that the interconnections between the hemispheres may be used to strengthen or correct incorrect interpretations by one hemisphere. We test this hypothesis by (I) postulating that in the Left Hemisphere (LH) orthography, phonology and semantics are interconnected while (II) the Right Hemisphere (RH), phonology is not connected directly to orthography and hence its influence must be mitigated by semantical processing (III) seeing if corrections in ambiguous word processing can be aided by information in the other hemisphere. We investigate this by complementary human psychophysical experiments and by dual (one RH and one LH) computational neural network model architecturally modified from Kawamoto’s (1993) model to follow our hypothesis. Since the different models have different rates of convergence, we test (III) by halting processing, and using an analogue to priming to compare the rate of convergence to a corrected semantics in the LH working alone and working with information obtained from the RH at the same point in processing. In this paper we present results of the computational model and show that (I) the results obtained from the two hemispheres separately are analogous to the human experiments and (II) the use of the RH information does indeed help such corrections.

Keywords

Left Hemi Ambiguity Resolution Ambiguous Word Right Hemisphere Phonological Code 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Beeman, M: Coarse semantic coding and discourse comprehension. In: Beeman, M., Chiarello, C. (eds.) Right hemisphere language comprehension: Perspectives from cognitive neuroscience, pp. 255–284. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah (N.J.) (1998)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beeman, M., Friedman, R., Garfman, J., Perez, E., Diamond, S., Lindsay, M.: Summation priming and coarse semantic coding in the right hemisphere. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 6, 26–45 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berent, I.: A rose is a REEZE: The two-cycles of phonology assembly in reading English. Psychological Review 102, 146–184 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Burgess, C., Lund, K.: Modeling cerebral asymmetries in high- dimensional space. In: Beeman, M., Chiarello, C. (eds.) Right hemisphere language comprehension: Perspectives from cognitive neuroscience, pp. 215–244. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ (1998)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Burgess, C., Simpson, G.B.: Cerebral hemispheric mechanisms in the retrieval of ambiguous word meanings. Brain and Language 33, 86–103 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chenery, H.I., Copland, D.A., Murdoch, B.E.: Complex language function and subcortical mechanisms: Evidence from Huntington’s disease and patients with non-thalamic subcortical lesions. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders 37(4), 459–474 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Frost, R.: Toward a strong phonological theory of visual word recognition: True issues and false trails. Psychological Bulletin 123, 71–99 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Frost, R., Bentin, S.: Processing phonological and semantic ambiguity: Evidence from semantic priming at different SOAs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 18, 58–68 (1992)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Faust, M., Chiarello, C.: Sentence context and lexical ambiguity resolution by the two hemispheres. Neuropsychologia 36, 827–836 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Faust, M.E., Gernsbacher, M.A.: Cerebral mechanisms for suppression of inappropriate information during sentence comprehension. Brain and Language 53, 234–259 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grindrod, C., Baum, S.: Sensitivity to local sentence context information in lexical ambiguity resolution: Evidence from left-right-hemisphere-damaged individuals. Brain & Language 85, 502–523 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hopfield, J.J.: Neural networks and physical systems with emergent collective computational abilities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 79, 2554–2558 (1982)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Iacoboni, M., Zaidel, E.: Hemispheric independence in word recognition: evidence from unilateral and bilateral presentations. Brain Lang. 53, 121–140 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kawamoto, A.H.: Nonlinear dynamics in the resolution of lexical ambiguity: A parallel distributed processing account. Journal of Memory and Language 32, 474–516 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lavidor, M., Ellis, A.W.: Orthographic and phonological priming in the two cerebral hemispheres. Laterality 8, 201–223 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lukatela, G., Turvey, M.T.: Visual access is initially phonological. 1: Evidence from associative priming by words, homophones, and pseudohomophones. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 123, 107–128 (1994a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lukatela, G., Turvey, M.T.: Visual access is initially phonological. 2: Evidence from associative priming by homophones, and pseudohomophones. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 123, 331–353 (1994b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Marsolek, C.J., Kosslyn, S.M., Squire, L.R.: Form-specific visual priming in the right cerebral hemisphere. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 18, 492–508 (1992)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Marsolek, C.J., Schacter, D.L., Nicholas, C.D.: Form-specific visual priming for new associations in the right cerebral hemisphere. Memory and Cognition 24, 539–556 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Peleg, O., Giora, R., Fein, O.: Salience and context effects: Two are better than one. Metaphor and Symbol 16, 173–192 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Peleg, O., Giora, R., Fein, O.: Contextual strength: The Whens and hows of context effects. In: Noveck, I., Sperber, D. (eds.) Experimental Pragmatics, pp. 172–186. Pagrave, Basingstoke (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Seidenberg, M.S., McClelland, J.L.: A distributed developmental model of word recognition and naming. Psychological Review 96, 523–568 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Swinney, D., Love, T.: Context effects on lexical processing during auditory sentence comprehension; on the time course and neurological bases of a basic comprehension process. In: Witruk, Friederici, Lachmann (eds.) Basic Functions of Language, Reading and Reading Disability, Section 2, ch. 1, pp. 25–40. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Titone, D.A.: Hemispheric differences in context sensitivity during lexical ambiguity resolution. Brain and Language 65, 361–394 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Thivierge, J.P., Titone, D., Shultz, T.R.: Simulating frontotemporal pathways involved in lexical ambiguity resolution. Poster Proceedings of the Cognitive Science Society (2005)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tompkins, C.A., Lehman, M.T., Wyatt, A.D., Schulz, R.: Functional outcome assessment of adults with right hemisphere brain damage. Seminars in Speech and Language 19, 303–321 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Van Orden, G.C, Kloos, H.: The question of phonology and reading. In: Snowling, M.S., Hulme, C., Seidenberg, M. (eds.) The science of reading: A handbook, Blackwell Pub., Malden (2005)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Van Orden, G.C., Pennington, B.F., Stone, G.O.: Word identification in reading and the promise of subsymbolic psycholinguistics. Psychological Review 97, 488–522 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zaidel, E.: Reading in the disconnected right hemisphere: An aphasiological perspective Dyslexia: Neuronal. Cognitive and Linguistic Aspects Oxford 35, 67–91 (1982)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zaidel, E., Peters, A.M.: Phonological encoding and ideographic reading by the disconnected right hemisphere: Two case Studies. Brain & Language 14, 205–234 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Orna Peleg
    • 1
  • Zohar Eviatar
    • 1
  • Hananel Hazan
    • 1
  • Larry Manevitz
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Information Processing and Decision Making And Department of Computer Science University of Haifa, Mount Carmel, Haifa 31905Israel

Personalised recommendations