Humans primarily rely on language to communicate, on the basis of a shared understanding of the basic building blocks of communication: words. Do we mean the same things when we use the same words? Although cognitive neural research on semantics has revealed the common principles of word-meaning representation, the factors underlying the potential individual variations in word meanings are unknown. Here, we empirically characterized the intersubject consistency of 90 words across 20 adult subjects (10 female) using both behavioral measures (rating-based semantic-relationship patterns) and neuroimaging measures (word-evoked brain activity patterns). Across both the behavioral and neuroimaging experiments, we showed that the magnitude of individual disagreements on word meanings could be modeled on the basis of how much language or sensory experience is associated with a word and that this variation increases with word abstractness. Uncovering the cognitive and neural origins of word-meaning disagreements across individuals has implications for potential mechanisms to modulate such disagreements.
BarsalouL. W.Wiemer-HastingsK. (2005). Situating abstract concepts. In PecherD.ZwaanR. A. (Eds.), Grounding cognition: The role of perception and action in memory, language, and thinking (pp. 129–163). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511499968.007
2.
BiY.WangX.CaramazzaA. (2016). Object domain and modality in the ventral visual pathway. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(4), 282–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.02.002
3.
BinderJ. R.ConantL. L.HumphriesC. J.FernandinoL.SimonsS. B.AguilarM.DesaiR. H. (2016). Toward a brain-based componential semantic representation. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 33(3–4), 130–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643294.2016.1147426
4.
BriscoeJ.ChilversR.BaldewegT.SkuseD. (2012). A specific cognitive deficit within semantic cognition across a multi-generational family. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 279(1743), 3652–3661. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2012.0894
5.
BrooksJ. A.FreemanJ. B. (2018). Conceptual knowledge predicts the representational structure of facial emotion perception. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(8), 581–591. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0376-6
CreeG. S.McRaeK. (2003). Analyzing the factors underlying the structure and computation of the meaning of chipmunk, cherry, chisel, cheese, and cello (and many other such concrete nouns). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132(2), 163–201. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.132.2.163
8.
de LeeuwJ.MairP. (2009). Multidimensional scaling using majorization: SMACOF in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 31(3). http://www.jstatsoft.org/v31/i03/
9.
FedorenkoE.HsiehP. J.Nieto-CastañónA.Whitfield-GabrieliS.KanwisherN. (2010). New method for fMRI investigations of language: Defining ROIs functionally in individual subjects. Journal of Neurophysiology, 104(2), 1177–1194. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00032.2010
10.
FernandinoL.BinderJ. R.DesaiR. H.PendlS. L.HumphriesC. J.GrossW. L.ConantL. L.SeidenbergM. S. (2016). Concept representation reflects multimodal abstraction: A framework for embodied semantics. Cerebral Cortex, 26(5), 2018–2034. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhv020
11.
HoffmanP.Lambon RalphM. A.RogersT. T. (2013). Semantic diversity: A measure of semantic ambiguity based on variability in the contextual usage of words. Behavior Research Methods, 45(3), 718–730. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0278-x
12.
HungJ.WangX.WangX.BiY. (2020). Functional subdivisions in the anterior temporal lobes: A large scale meta-analytic investigation. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 115, 134–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2020.05.008
13.
JacksonJ. C.WattsJ.HenryT. R.ListJ.ForkelR.MuchaP. J.GreenhillS. J.GrayR. D.LindquistK. A. (2019). Emotion semantics show both cultural variation and universal structure. Science, 366, 1517–1522.
14.
KoustaS. T.ViglioccoG.VinsonD. P.AndrewsM.Del CampoE. (2011). The representation of abstract words: Why emotion matters. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140(1), 14–34. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021446
KriegeskorteN.MurM. (2012). Inverse MDS: Inferring dissimilarity structure from multiple item arrangements. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, Article 245. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00245
17.
KriegeskorteN.MurM.BandettiniP. (2008). Representational similarity analysis—connecting the branches of systems neuroscience. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 2, Article 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/neuro.06.004.2008
18.
KriegeskorteN.MurM.RuffD. A.KianiR.BodurkaJ.EstekyH.TanakaK.BandettiniP. A. (2008). Matching categorical object representations in inferior temporal cortex of man and monkey. Neuron, 60(6), 1126–1141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2008.10.043
19.
Lambon RalphM. A.JefferiesE.PattersonK.RogersT. T. (2017). The neural and computational bases of semantic cognition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 18(1), 42–55. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn.2016.150
20.
LandauerT. K.DumaisS. T. (1997). A solution to Plato’s problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104(2), 211–240.
21.
LiP.SchlossB.FollmerD. J. (2017). Speaking two “languages” in America: A semantic space analysis of how presidential candidates and their supporters represent abstract political concepts differently. Behavior Research Methods, 49(5), 1668–1685. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0931-5
22.
LockeJ. (1690). An essay concerning human understanding. Oxford University Press.
23.
Maimon-MorR. O.MakinT. R. (2020). Is an artificial limb embodied as a hand? Brain decoding in prosthetic limb users. PLOS Biology, 18(6), Article e3000729. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000729
24.
MarggolisE.LaurenceS. (Eds.). (1999). Concepts: Core readings. MIT Press.
25.
MartinA. (2016). GRAPES—grounding representations in action, perception, and emotion systems: How object properties and categories are represented in the human brain. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 23(4), 979–990. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0842-3
26.
MitchellT. M.ShinkarevaS. V.CarlsonA.ChangK. M.MalaveV. L.MasonR. A.JustM. A. (2008). Predicting human brain activity associated with the meanings of nouns. Science, 320(5880), 1191–1195. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1152876
27.
MuellerS.WangD.FoxM. D.YeoB. T. T.SepulcreJ.SabuncuM. R.ShafeeR.LuJ.LiuH. (2013). Individual variability in functional connectivity architecture of the human brain. Neuron, 77(3), 586–595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2012.12.028
28.
R Core Team. (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Version 4.0.0) [Computer software]. http://www.R-project.org
29.
RussellB. (1948). Human knowledge: Its scope and limits. George Allen & Unwin.
30.
SchwanenflugelP. J.ShobenE. J. (1983). Differential context effects in the comprehension of abstract and concrete verbal materials. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 9(1), 82–102. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.9.1.82
31.
Striem-AmitE.WangX.BiY.CaramazzaA. (2018). Neural representation of visual concepts in people born blind. Nature Communications, 9(1), Article 5250. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-07574-3
32.
SunC. C.HendrixP.MaJ.BaayenR. H. (2018). Chinese Lexical Database (CLD): A large-scale lexical database for simplified Mandarin Chinese. Behavior Research Methods, 50(6), 2606–2629. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-1038-3
33.
SunH. L.HuangJ. P.SunD. J.LiD. J.XingH. (1997). Introduction to language corpus system of modern Chinese study. In HuM. Y. (Ed.), Paper collection for the Fifth World Chinese Teaching Symposium (pp. 459–466). Peking University Publishers.
34.
ThompsonB.RobertsS. G.LupyanG. (2020). Cultural influences on word meanings revealed through large-scale semantic alignment. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(10), 1029–1038. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0924-8
WangJ.ConderJ. A.BlitzerD. N.ShinkarevaS. V. (2010). Neural representation of abstract and concrete concepts: A meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies. Human Brain Mapping, 31(10), 1459–1468. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.20950
WangX.WangB.BiY. (2019). Close yet independent: Dissociation of social from valence and abstract semantic dimensions in the left anterior temporal lobe. Human Brain Mapping, 40(16), 4759–4776. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.24735
39.
XiaM.WangJ.HeY. (2013). BrainNet Viewer: A network visualization tool for human brain connectomics. PLOS ONE, 8(7), Article e68910. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0068910
40.
XiaoX.ZhouY.LiuJ.YeZ.YaoL.ZhangJ.ChenC.XueG. (2020). Individual-specific and shared representations during episodic memory encoding and retrieval. NeuroImage, 217, Article 116909. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.116909
41.
YarkoniT.PoldrackR. A.NicholsT. E.Van EssenD. C.WagerT. D. (2011). Large-scale automated synthesis of human functional neuroimaging data. Nature Methods, 8(8), 665–670. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.1635
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
