类属和主题关系分离表征的脑机制

doi:10.19988/j.cnki.issn.2095-1159.2023.06.002

心理研究

2023, Vol. 16

Issue (6): 491-501 DOI: 10.19988/j.cnki.issn.2095-1159.2023.06.002

基础研究

本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索

类属和主题关系分离表征的脑机制

王晓曦, 马瑞敏, 胡娜

昆明学院学前与特殊教育学院,昆明 650214

Distinct representation of taxonomic and thematic relations in brain

WANG Xiaoxi, MA Ruimin, HU Na

School of Pre-school and Special Education, Kunming University, Kunming 650214

摘要
图/表
参考文献
相关文章 (0)

全文: PDF (1155 KB) HTML (1 KB)
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

摘要类属关系和主题关系是人类最常用的两种概念表征模式。类属关系表征主要依赖于事物之间的相似性以及共享的特征（例如：麻雀-喜鹊）;主题关系表征基于共同事件或者情节（例如：咖啡-牛奶）。梳理这两类概念表征的研究成果发现,类属关系和主题关系存在着分离的表征加工系统。类属关系的加工需要抽取事物的静态特征,如形状、颜色等,同时需要认知控制资源的参与;主题关系的加工需要抽取事物的动态特征,如时空关系、事件背景等,需要得到记忆的支持。回顾两类关系表征加工的研究发现,它们在发展趋势、加工的时间进程以及存储加工的脑机制上都存在分离。在年龄发展趋势上,幼儿更倾向于使用主题关系进行分类。在时间进程上,主题关系激活更早。在加工的脑区方面,类属关系的加工主要和颞叶前部区域相关,该区域与前额叶有密切关联。主题关系加工主要与颞顶联合区域有关,该区域与海马、视觉中枢都有密切关联。类属和主题关系的加工基于复杂的神经网络,涉及感知觉、认知控制、记忆等相关脑区的参与,未来的研究需要进一步明确这两种重要的概念关系的表征和加工的神经机制。

	服务

	把本文推荐给朋友
	加入我的书架
	加入引用管理器
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	作者相关文章
	王晓曦
	马瑞敏
	胡娜

关键词 ：类属关系, 主题关系, 前颞叶, 颞顶联合区

基金资助:国家自然科学基金项目（32160199）、云南省地方本科高校（部分）基础研究（202101BA070001-258; 202101BA070001-156）

通讯作者: 王晓曦,女,副教授,博士。Email：xiaoxiwang@kmu.edu.cn

引用本文:

王晓曦, 马瑞敏, 胡娜. 类属和主题关系分离表征的脑机制[J]. 心理研究, 2023, 16(6): 491-501.
WANG Xiaoxi, MA Ruimin, HU Na. Distinct representation of taxonomic and thematic relations in brain. Psychological Research, 2023, 16(6): 491-501.

链接本文:

http://xlyj.magtech.com.cn/CN/10.19988/j.cnki.issn.2095-1159.2023.06.002 或 http://xlyj.magtech.com.cn/CN/Y2023/V16/I6/491

[1] Acosta-Cabronero J., Patterson K., Fryer T. D., Hodges J. R., Pengas G., Williams G. B., & Nestor P. J. (2011). Atrophy, hypometabolism and white matter abnormalities in semantic dementia tell a coherent story.Brain, 134(7), 2025-2035.
[2] Arias-Trejo, N., & Plunkett, K. (2009). Lexical-semantic priming effects during infancy.Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364(1536), 3633-3647.
[3] Ashby, F. G., & O’Brien, J. B. (2005). Category learning and multiple memory systems.Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(2), 83-89.
[4] Bedny M., Dravida S., & Saxe R. (2014). Shindigs, brunches, and rodeos: The neural basis of event words.Cognitive, Affective and Behavioral Neuroscience, 14(3), 891-901.
[5] Binder, J. R., & Desai, R. H. (2011). The neurobiology of semantic memory.Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(11), 527-536.
[6] Binder J. R., Desai R. H., Graves W. W., & Conant L. L. (2009). Where is the semantic system? A critical review and meta-analysis of 120 functional neuroimaging studies.Cerebral Cortex, 19(12), 2767-2796.
[7] Blaye A., Bernard-Peyron V., Paour J.-L., & Bonthoux F. (2006). Categorical flexibility in children: Distinguishing response flexibility from conceptual flexibility; the protracted development of taxonomic representations.European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 3(2), 163-188.
[8] Blaye, A., & Bonthoux, F. (2001). Thematic and taxonomic relations in preschoolers: The development of flexibility in categorization choices.British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 19(3), 395-411.
[9] Bonner M. F., Peelle J. E., Cook P. A., & Grossman M. (2013). Heteromodal conceptual processing in the angular gyrus.NeuroImage, 71, 175-186.
[10] Bonnici H. M., Richter F. R., Yazar Y., & Simons J. S. (2016). Multimodal feature integration in the angular gyrus during episodic and semantic retrieval.Journal of Neuroscience, 36(20), 5462-5471.
[11] Boylan C., Trueswell J. C., & Thompson-Schill S. L. (2015). Compositionality and the angular gyrus: A multi-voxel similarity analysis of the semantic composition of nouns and verbs.Neuropsychologia, 78, 130-141.
[12] Chen Q., Ye C., Liang X., Cao B., Lei Y., & Li H. (2014). Automatic processing of taxonomic and thematic relations in semantic priming - Differentiation by early N400 and late frontal negativity.Neuropsychologia, 64, 54-62.
[13] Cicirelli, V. G. (1976). Categorization behavior in aging subjects.Journals of Gerontology, 31(6), 676-680.
[14] Clarke A., Taylor K. I., & Tyler L. K. (2011). The evolution of meaning: Spatio-temporal dynamics of visual object recognition.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(8), 1887-1899.
[15] Clarke, A., & Tyler, L. K. (2015). Understanding what we see: How we derive meaning from vision.Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19(11), 677-687.
[16] Coni A. G., Ison M., & Vivas J. (2019). Conceptual flexibility in school children: Switching between taxonomic and thematic relations. Cognitive Development, 52, Article 100827.
[17] Coutanche, M. N., & Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2015). Creating concepts from converging features in human cortex.Cerebral Cortex, 25(9), 2584-2593.
[18] Cui Y., Liu Y., Yang C., Cui C., Jing D., Zhang X., Chen Y., Li B., Liang Z., Chen K., Zhang Z., & Wu L. (2021). Brain structural and functional anomalies associated with simultanagnosia in patients with posterior cortical atrophy.Brain Imaging and Behavior, 16, 1148-1162.
[19] de Zubicaray G. I., Hansen S., & McMahon K. L. (2013). Differential processing of thematic and categorical conceptual relations in spoken word production.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(1), 131-142.
[20] Ding J., Chen S., Wang L., & Yang Y. (2017). Thematic and taxonomic relations of novel words learned from action and perceptual features.Journal of Neurolinguistics, 41, 70-84.
[21] Durey, M. (2012). Damage to temporo-parietal cortex decreases incidental activation of thematic relations during spoken word comprehension.Neuropsychologia, 50(8), 1990-1997.
[22] Eichenbaum, H. (2013). Memory on time.Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(2), 81-81.
[23] Federico, G., & Brandimonte, M. A. (2019). Tool and object affordances: An ecological eye-tracking study. Brain and Cognition, 135, Article 103582.
[24] Fernandino L., Binder J. R., Desai R. H., Pendl S. L., Humphries C. J., Gross W. L., Conant L. L., & Seidenberg M. S. (2016). Concept representation reflects multimodal abstraction: A framework for embodied semantics.Cerebral Cortex, 26(5), 2018-2034. Gainotti, G.(3), 299-309.
[25] Geng, J., & Schnur, T. T. (2015). The representation of concrete and abstract concepts: Categorical versus associative relationships.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 41(1), 22-41.
[26] Guo C. C., Gorno-Tempini M. L., Gesierich B., Henry M., Trujillo A., Shany-Ur T., Jovicich J., Robinson S. D., Kramer J. H., Rankin K. P., Miller B. L., & Seeley W. W. (2013). Anterior temporal lobe degeneration produces widespread network-driven dysfunction.Brain, 136(10), 2979-2991.
[27] Harry B. B., Umla-Runge K., Lawrence A. D., Graham K. S., & Downing P. E. (2016). Evidence for integrated visual face and body representations in the anterior temporal lobes.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 28(8), 1178-1193.
[28] Henseler I., Mädebach A., Kotz S. A., & Jescheniak J. D. (2014). Modulating brain mechanisms resolving Lexico-semantic interference during word production: A transcranial direct current stimulation study.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 26(7), 1403-1417.
[29] Hurley R. S., Bonakdarpour B., Wang X., & Mesulam M. M. (2015). Asymmetric connectivity between the anterior temporal lobe and the language network.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 27(3), 464-473.
[30] Jackson R. L., Hoffman P., Pobric G., & Lambon Ralph, M. A. (2016). The semantic network at work and rest: Differential connectivity of anterior temporal lobe subregions.Journal of Neuroscience, 36(5), 1490-1501.
[31] Joubert S., Vallet G. T., Montembeault M., Boukadi M., Wilson M. A., Laforce R., Jr., Rouleau I., & Brambati S. M. (2017). Comprehension of concrete and abstract words in semantic variant primary progressive aphasia and Alzheimer’s disease: A behavioral and neuroimaging study.Brain and Language, 170, 93-102.
[32] Kalénine, S., & Buxbaum, L. J. (2016). Thematic knowledge, artifact concepts, and the left posterior temporal lobe: Where action and object semantics converge.Cortex, 82, 164-178.
[33] Kalénine S., Peyrin C., Pichat C., Segebarth C., Bonthoux F., & Baciu M. (2009). The sensory-motor specificity of taxonomic and thematic conceptual relations: A behavioral and fMRI study.NeuroImage, 44(3), 1152-1162.
[34] Lambon Ralph, M. A. (2014). Neurocognitive insights on conceptual knowledge and its breakdown.Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 369(1634), Artical20120392, 1-12.
[35] Lehky, S. R., & Tanaka, K. (2016). Neural representation for object recognition in inferotemporal cortex. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 37, 23-35.
[36] Lestou V., Lam J. M. L., Humphreys K., Kourtzi Z., & Humphreys G. W. (2014). A dorsal visual route necessary for global form perception: Evidence from neuropsychological fMRI.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 26(3), 621-634.
[37] Lewis G. A., Poeppel D., & Murphy G. L. (2015). The neural bases of taxonomic and thematic conceptual relations: An MEG study.Neuropsychologia, 68, 176-189.
[38] Lin, E. L., & Murphy, G. L. (2001). Thematic relations in adults' concepts.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130(1), 3-28.
[39] Ma N., Vandekerckhove M., Van Hoeck N., & Van Overwalle F. (2012). Distinct recruitment of temporo-parietal junction and medial prefrontal cortex in behavior understanding and trait identification.Social Neuroscience, 7(6), 591-605.
[40] Maguire M. J., Brier M. R., & Ferree T. C. (2010). EEG theta and alpha responses reveal qualitative differences in processing taxonomic versus thematic semantic relationships.Brain and Language, 114(1), 16-25.
[41] Martin, A. (2010). The selectivity and functional connectivity of the anterior temporal lobes.Cerebral Cortex, 20(4), 813-825.
[42] Martin, A. (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.
[43] Martin C. B., Douglas D., Newsome R. N., Man L. L. Y., & Barense M. D. (2018). Integrative and distinctive coding of visual and conceptual object features in the ventral visual stream.eLife Sciences, 7, e31873.
[44] Mirman, D., & Graziano, K. M. (2012a). Damage to temporo-parietal cortex decreases incidental activation of thematic relations during spoken word comprehension.Neuropsychologia, 50(8), 1990-1997.
[45] Mirman, D., & Graziano, K. M. (2012b). Individual differences in the strength of taxonomic versus thematic relations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(4), 601-609.
[46] Mirman D., Landrigan J. F., & Britt A. E. (2017). Taxonomic and thematic semantic systems.Psychological Bulletin, 143(5), 499-520.
[47] Nation, K., & Snowling, M. J. (1999). Developmental differences in sensitivity to semantic relations among good and poor comprehenders: Evidence from semantic priming.Cognition, 70(1), B1-B13.
[48] Ortigue S., Thompson J. C., Parasuraman R., & Graevfton S. T. (2009). Spatio-temporal dynamics of human intention understanding in temporo-parietal cortex: A combined EEG/fMRI repetition suppresion paradigm.PLoS ONE, 4(9), e6962,1-10.
[49] Pascual B., Masdeu J. C., Hollenbeck M., Makris N., Insausti R., Ding S. L., & Dickerson B. C. (2015). Large-scale brain networks of the human left temporal pole: A functional connectivity MRI study.Cerebral Cortex, 25(3), 680-702.
[50] Peelen, M. V., & Caramazza, A. (2012). Conceptual object representations in human anterior temporal cortex.Journal of Neuroscience, 32(45), 15728-15736.
[51] Pobric G., Jefferies E., & Lambon Ralph, M. A. (2010). Amodal semantic representations depend on both anterior temporal lobes: Evidence from repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation.Neuropsychologia, 48(5), 1336-1342.
[52] Price A. R., Bonner M. F., Peelle J. E., & Grossman M. (2015). Converging evidence for the neuroanatomic basis of combinatorial semantics in the angular gyrus.Journal of Neuroscience, 35(7), 3276-3284.
[53] Pulvermüller, F., & Fadiga, L. (2010). Active perception: Sensorimotor circuits as a cortical basis for language.Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(5), 351-360.
[54] Ralph M. A. L., Jefferies E., Patterson K., & Rogers T. T. (2016). The neural and computational bases of semantic cognition.Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 18(1), 42-55.
[55] Ralph M. A. L., Lowe C., & Rogers T. T. (2007). Neural basis of category-specific semantic deficits for living things: Evidence from semantic dementia, HSVE and a neural network model.Brain, 130(4), 1127-1137.
[56] Ramanan S., Piguet O., & Irish M. (2018). Rethinking the role of the angular gyrus in remembering the past and imagining the future: The contextual integration model.Neuroscientist, 24(4), 342-352.
[57] Ramos, J. M. J. (2014). Essential role of the perirhinal cortex in complex tactual discrimination tasks in rats.Cerebral Cortex, 24(8), 2068-2080.
[58] Rice G. E., Hoffman P., & Ralph M. (2015). Graded specialization within and between the anterior temporal lobes.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1359, 84-97
[59] Rice G. E., Caswell H., Moore P., Hoffman P., & Lambon Ralph, M. A. (2018). The roles of left versus right anterior temporal lobes in semantic memory: A neuropsychological comparison of postsurgical temporal lobe epilepsy patients.Cerebral Cortex, 28(4), 1487-1501.
[60] Schwartz M. F., Kimberg D. Y., Walker G. M., Brecher A., Faseyitan O. K., Dell G. S., Mirman D., & Coslett H. B. (2011). Neuroanatomical dissociation for taxonomic and thematic knowledge in the human brain.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(20), 8520-8524.
[61] Seghier, M. L. (2013). The angular gyrus: Multiple functions and multiple subdivisions.Neuroscientist, 19(1), 43-61.
[62] Simmons W. K., Reddish M., Bellgowan P. S. F., & Martin A. (2010). The selectivity and functional connectivity of the anterior temporal lobes.Cerebral Cortex, 20(4), 813-825.
[63] Smiley, S. S., & Brown, A. L. (1979). Conceptual preference for thematic or taxonomic relations: A nonmonotonic age trend from preschool to old age.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 28(2), 249-257.
[64] Striem-Amit E., Wang X., Bi Y., & Caramazza A. (2018). Neural representation of visual concepts in people born blind. Nature Communications, 9(1), Article 5250.
[65] Suzuki, W. A., & Naya, Y. (2014). The perirhinal cortex.Annual Review of Neuroscience, 37, 39-53.
[66] Thakral P. P., Madore K. P., & Schacter D. L. (2017). A role for the left angular gyrus in episodic simulation and memory.Journal of Neuroscience, 37(34), 8142-8149.
[67] Tsagkaridis K., Watson C., Jax S., & Buxbaum L. (2014). The role of action representations in thematic object relations. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, Article 140,1-12.
[68] Tyler L. K., Stamatakis E. A., Dick E., Bright P., Fletcher P., & Moss H. (2003). Objects and their actions: Evidence for a neurally distributed semantic system.NeuroImage, 18(2), 542-557.
[69] Unger L., Fisher A. V., Nugent R., Ventura S. L., & MacLellan C. J. (2016). Developmental changes in semantic knowledge organization.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 146, 202-222.
[70] Wamain Y., Pluciennicka E., & Kalénine S. (2015). A saw is first identified as an object used on wood: ERP evidence for temporal differences between thematic and functional similarity relations.Neuropsychologia, 71, 28-37.
[71] Wang X., Wang B., & Bi Y. (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.
[72] Whitlock, J. R. (2017). Posterior parietal cortex.Current Biology, 27(14),R691-R695.
[73] Wright P., Randall B., Clarke A., & Tyler L. K. (2015). The perirhinal cortex and conceptual processing: Effects of feature-based statistics following damage to the anterior temporal lobes.Neuropsychologia, 76, 192-207.