Images depict specific objects (e.g., a specific dog), yet are named with categorical labels (e.g., “dog”). We examined how semantic representations activated by images may be influenced by implicit labelling. Participants saw images of familiar objects and generated words associated with each image while undergoing transcranial direct current stimulation over the posterior superior temporal gyrus. Additional participants judged how representative generated associates were of the picture category and guessed the category based on the associates. Anodal stimulation was predicted to up-regulate labelling and thereby increase the extent to which participants produced associate that were more representative of the pictured category. Associates generated by anodally stimulated subjects were found to be more representative and enabled more accurate guessing of the category from which they were generated. The general pattern of results was replicated in a follow-up study using words rather than picture cues. Together these results suggest labelling may help stabilise semantic representations, leading to more robust representation of category-relevant information.
AsrF. T.WillitsJ. A.JonesM. N. (2016, August10–13). Comparing predictive and co-occurrence based models of lexical semantics trained on child-directed speech [Paper presentation]. 38th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Austin, TX, United States.
2.
BarsalouL. W. (1982). Context-independent and context-dependent information in concepts. Memory & Cognition, 10(1), 82–93. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197629
3.
BatsikadzeG.MoliadzeV.PaulusW.KuoM.-F.NitscheM. A. (2013). Partially non-linear stimulation intensity-dependent effects of direct current stimulation on motor cortex excitability in humans. The Journal of Physiology, 591(Pt. 7), 1987–2000. https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.2012.249730
4.
BinderJ. R.FrostJ. A.HammekeT. A.CoxR. W.RaoS. M.PrietoT. (1997). Human brain language areas identified by functional magnetic resonance imaging. The Journal of Neuroscience, 17(1), 353–362.
5.
BoehringerA.MacherK.DukartJ.VillringerA.PlegerB. (2013). Cerebellar transcranial direct current stimulation modulates verbal working memory. Brain Stimulation, 6(4), 649–653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2012.10.001
6.
BoutonnetB.LupyanG. (2015). Words jump-start vision: A label advantage in object recognition. The Journal of Neuroscience, 35(25), 9329–9335. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5111-14.2015
7.
BrackenburyT.PyeC. (2005). Semantic deficits in children with language impairments: Issues for clinical assessment. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 36(1), 5–16.
8.
BrooksP.MaoueneJ.SailorK.Seiger-GardnerL. (2016, November4–6). Modeling the semantic networks of school-age children with specific language impairment and their typical peers [Paper Presentation]. 41st Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, Boston, MA, United States.
9.
BrücknerS.KammerT. (2017). Both anodal and cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation improves semantic processing. Neuroscience, 343, 269–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2016.12.015
10.
BrysbaertM.NewB. (2009). Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 977–990. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.977
11.
BrysbaertM.WarrinerA. B.KupermanV. (2014). Concreteness ratings for 40 thousand generally known English word lemmas. Behavior Research Methods, 46(3), 904–911. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0403-5
12.
CasasantoD.LupyanG. (2015). All concepts are ad hoc concepts. In MargolisE.LaurenceS. (Eds.), The Conceptual mind: New directions in the study of concepts (pp. 543–566). MIT Press.
13.
ChabalS.MarianV. (2015). Speakers of different languages process the visual world differently. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(3), 539–550. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000075
14.
DavidoffJ.RobersonD. (2004). Preserved thematic and impaired taxonomic categorisation: A case study. Language and Cognitive Processes, 19(1), 137–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960344000125
15.
De DeyneS.NavarroD. J.StormsG. (2013). Better explanations of lexical and semantic cognition using networks derived from continued rather than single-word associations. Behavior Research Methods, 45(2), 480–498. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0260-7
FioriV.CocciaM.MarinelliC. V.VecchiV.BonifaziS.CeravoloM. G.ProvincialiL.TomaiuoloF.MarangoloP. (2011). Transcranial direct current stimulation improves word retrieval in healthy and nonfluent aphasic subjects. J. Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(9), 2309–2323. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2010.21579
19.
FlöelA.RösserN.MichkaO.KnechtS.BreitensteinC. (2008). Noninvasive brain stimulation improves language learning. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20(8), 1415–1422. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2008.20098
20.
ForderL.LupyanG. (2019). Hearing words changes color perception: Facilitation of color discrimination by verbal and visual cues. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148(7), 1105–1123. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000560
HomanR. W.HermanJ.PurdyP. (1987). Cerebral location of international 10–20 system electrode placement. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 66(4), 376–382. https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-4694(87)90206-9
JefferiesE. (2013). The neural basis of semantic cognition: Converging evidence from neuropsychology, neuroimaging and TMS. Cortex, 49(3), 611–625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2012.10.008
28.
Karmiloff-SmithA. (1998). Development itself is the key to understanding developmental disorders. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2(10), 389–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(98)01230-3
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
31.
LaurenceS.MargolisE. (1999). Concepts and cognitive science. In MargolisE.LaurenceS. (Eds.), Concepts: Core readings (pp. 3–81). A Bradford Book.
32.
LupyanG. (2008). From chair to “chair”: A representational shift account of object labeling effects on memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137(2), 348–369. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.137.2.348
LupyanG. (2012a). Linguistically modulated perception and cognition: The label-feedback hypothesis. Frontiers in Cognition, 3, Article 54. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00054
35.
LupyanG. (2012b). What do words do? Toward a theory of language-augmented thought. In RossB. H. (Ed.), Psychology of Learning and Motivation—Advances in Research and Theory (Vol. 57, pp. 255–297). Elsevier Academic Press.
LupyanG.SwingleyD. (2012). Self-directed speech affects visual search performance. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65(6), 1068–1085. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2011.647039
39.
LupyanG.Thompson-SchillS. L. (2012). The evocative power of words: Activation of concepts by verbal and nonverbal means. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(1), 170–186. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024904
40.
MarangoloP.FioriV.CalpagnanoM. A.CampanaS.RazzanoC.CaltagironeC.MariniA. (2013). TDCS over the left inferior frontal cortex improves speech production in aphasia. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, Article 539. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00539
41.
McGregorK. K. (1997). The nature of word-finding errors of preschoolers with and without word-finding deficits. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research: JSLHR, 40(6), 1232–1244.
42.
McQueenJ. M.HuettigF. (2014). Interference of spoken word recognition through phonological priming from visual objects and printed words. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 76(1), 190–200. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-013-0560-8
MikolovT.ChenK.CorradoG.DeanJ. (2013). Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. ArXiv Preprint ArXiv:1301.3781. https://arxiv.org/abs/1301.3781
46.
NelsonD. L.McEvoyC. L.SchreiberT. A. (2004). The University of South Florida free association, rhyme, and word fragment norms. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(3), 402–407. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195588
47.
NitscheM. A.NitscheM. S.KleinC. C.TergauF.RothwellJ. C.PaulusW. (2003). Level of action of cathodal DC polarisation induced inhibition of the human motor cortex. Clinical Neurophysiology: Official Journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology, 114(4), 600–604.
48.
NoonanK. A.JefferiesE.CorbettF.Lambon RalphM. A. (2010). Elucidating the nature of deregulated semantic cognition in semantic aphasia: Evidence for the roles of prefrontal and temporo-parietal cortices. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22(7), 1597–1613. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2009.21289
49.
NoonanK. A.JefferiesE.VisserM.Lambon RalphM. A. (2013). Going beyond inferior prefrontal involvement in semantic control: Evidence for the additional contribution of dorsal angular gyrus and posterior middle temporal cortex. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 25(11), 1824–1850. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00442
50.
NozariN.WoodardK.Thompson-SchillS. L. (2014). Consequences of cathodal stimulation for behavior: When does it help and when does it hurt performance?PLoS ONE, 9(1), Article e84338. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0084338
51.
PelegO.EdelistL.EviatarZ.BergerbestD. (2016). Lexical factors in conceptual processes: The relationship between semantic representations and their corresponding phonological and orthographic lexical forms. Memory & Cognition, 44(4), 519–537. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-015-0576-5
52.
PerryL. K.LupyanG. (2013). What the online manipulation of linguistic activity can tell us about language and thought. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 7, 122. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2013.00122
53.
PerryL. K.LupyanG. (2014). The role of language in multi-dimensional categorization: Evidence from transcranial direct current stimulation and exposure to verbal labels. Brain and Language, 135, 66–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2014.05.005
PerryL. K.LupyanG. (2017b). Recognising a zebra from its stripes and the stripes from “zebra”: The role of verbal labels in selecting category relevant information. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 32(8), 925–943. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2016.1154974
56.
PriceC. J. (2000). The anatomy of language: Contributions from functional neuroimaging. Journal of Anatomy, 197(Pt. 3), 335–359.
57.
RahmanR. A.MelingerA. (2009). Semantic context effects in language production: A swinging lexical network proposal and a review. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24(5), 713–734. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960802597250
RossL. A.McCoyD.WolkD. A.CoslettH. B.OlsonI. R. (2010). Improved proper name recall by electrical stimulation of the anterior temporal lobes. Neuropsychologia, 48(12), 3671–3674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.07.024
ShengL.McGregorK. K. (2010). Lexical–semantic organization in children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 53(1), 146–159. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2009/08-0160)
62.
SparingR.DafotakisM.MeisterI.ThirugnanasambandamN.FinkG. (2008). Enhancing language performance with non-invasive brain stimulation—A transcranial direct current stimulation study in healthy humans. Neuropsychologia, 46(1), 261–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.07.009
63.
TabossiP. (1988). Effects of context on the immediate interpretation of unambiguous nouns. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 14(1), 153–162.
64.
TabossiP.Johnson-LairdP. N. (1980). Linguistic context and the priming of semantic information. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32(4), 595–603. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640748008401848
65.
ValesC.SmithL. B. (2015). Words, shape, visual search and visual working memory in 3-year-old children. Developmental Science, 18(1), 65–79. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12179
66.
WalenchokS. C.HoutM. C.GoldingerS. D. (2016). Implicit object naming in visual search: Evidence from phonological competition. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 78(8), 2633–2654. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-016-1184-6
67.
WestwoodS. J.RomaniC. (2017). Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) modulation of picture naming and word reading: A meta-analysis of single session tDCS applied to healthy participants. Neuropsychologia, 104, 234–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2017.07.031
68.
ZelinskyG. J.MurphyG. L. (2000). Synchronizing visual and language processing: An effect of object name length on eye movements. Psychological Science, 11(2), 125–131.
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.
