| Literature DB >> 18094962 |
Giuseppina Rota1, Ralf Veit, Davide Nardo, Nikolaus Weiskopf, Niels Birbaumer, Grzegorz Dogil.
Abstract
Previous studies investigating the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) have relied on a number of tasks which involved cognitive control and attentional demands. In this fMRI study, we tested the model that ACC functions as an attentional network in the processing of language. We employed a paradigm that requires the processing of concurrent linguistic information predicting that the cognitive costs imposed by competing trials would engender the activation of ACC. Subjects were confronted with sentences where the semantic content conflicted with the prosodic intonation (CONF condition) randomly interspaced with sentences which conveyed coherent discourse components (NOCONF condition). We observed the activation of the rostral ACC and the middle frontal gyrus when the NOCONF condition was subtracted from the CONF condition. Our findings provide evidence for the involvement of the rostral ACC in the processing of complex competing linguistic stimuli, supporting theories that claim its relevance as a part of the cortical attentional circuit. The processing of emotional prosody involved a bilateral network encompassing the superior and medial temporal cortices. This evidence confirms previous research investigating the neuronal network that supports the processing of emotional information.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2007 PMID: 18094962 PMCID: PMC2755755 DOI: 10.1007/s00221-007-1242-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Exp Brain Res ISSN: 0014-4819 Impact factor: 1.972
Brain areas activated for the conditions of interest
| Brain region BA area | Coordinates MNI ( | |
|---|---|---|
| Identification of emotional prosody | ||
| STG left (BA 41) | −51, −30, 12 | 6.75 |
| MTG left (BA 21) | −51, 2, −15 | 7.91 |
| MTG right (BA 21) | 51, 3, −15 | 7.56 |
| STG left (BA 42) | −63, −30, 6 | 9.53 |
| IFG left (BA 45) | −39, 21, 3 | 6.23 |
| IFG right (BA 45) | 42, 21, 3 | 6.35 |
| ACC right (BA 32) | 3, 9, 42 | 7.69 |
| SMA left (BA 6) | −6, 1, 52 | 10.7 |
| SMA right (BA 6) | 6, 0, 54 | 13.9 |
| Affective versus neutral prosody | – | – |
| NOCONF versus CONF | – | – |
| CONF versus NOCONF | ||
| ACC left (BA 32) | −3, 45, 0 | 4.71* |
| MFG right (BA 10) | 3, 54, 6 | 4.58* |
The table shows the brain sites activated for the main effect, for the conditions “affective versus neutral prosody”, “NOCONF versus CONF”, and “CONF versus NOCONF”. MNI (MNI stereotactic space; Collins et al. 1994) coordinates and corresponding t values are listed for each brain site. Corrected for the expected amount of false-positive findings among suprathreshold voxels in the whole brain (P < 0.001)
BA brodmann area, STG superior temporal gyrus, IFG inferior frontal gyrus, SMG supramarginal gyrus, SMA supplementary motor cortex, ACC anterior cingulate cortex, MFG middle frontal gyrus
* Significant on the cluster level
Fig. 1Significant activations elicited by the identification of emotional prosody. Statistical parametrical maps are based on random effects analyses. All sets of sentences were contrasted with the rest condition (baseline). Parametric images were corrected for multiple comparisons and thresholded at P < 0.001. At the bottom of the figure, significant differential activations resulting from the comparison between sentences characterised by incoherence between prosody and semantics and sentences characterised by semantics-prosody coherence are shown. Second level statistical parametrical maps are based on random effects analyses. All images were thresholded at P < 0.05 (corrected for multiple comparisons)
Fig. 2Levels of accuracy for coherence and incoherence between semantics and affective prosody. The figure depicts mean levels of accuracy for the detection of emotional intonations, for the NOCONF (trials conveying coherent prosodic and semantic valences) and the CONF conditions (trials conveying incoherent prosodic and semantic valences). Error bars show mean ± 1 SE. Statistical analyses on accuracy levels revealed a significant difference between the two conditions (paired t test, P < 0.05, df = 9, t = 5.05)
| Example sentences | |
|---|---|
| Sad semantics | Der Mann hilft dem sterbenden Sohn. |
| Happy semantics | Das Fest war nett und lustig. |
| Angry semantics | Diese Schufte stahlen mein ganzes Geld. |
| Neutral semantics | Das Kind geht in den Zoo. |