功能词与内容词加工的神经机制的研究综述

心理与行为研究 ›› 2005, Vol. 3 ›› Issue (1): 65-69.

功能词与内容词加工的神经机制的研究综述

郭桃梅,彭聃龄

北京师范大学认知神经科学与学习研究所,北京 100875

收稿日期:2003-11-30 出版日期:2005-03-20 发布日期:2015-01-21
作者简介:郭桃梅,女,北京师范大学认知神经科学与学习研究所讲师。Email: gtaomei@163.com。彭聃龄,男,北京师范大学心理学院教授,博士生导师。
基金资助:
本文得到国家自然科学基金30270462项目和攀登计划95-专-09项目的资助

A REVIEW OF THE NEURAL MECHANISM OF FUNCTION AND CONTENT WORDS

Guo Taomei,Peng Danling

Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience and Learning, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875

Received:2003-11-30 Online:2005-03-20 Published:2015-01-21

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 功能词和内容词的加工是认知心理学研究领域的热点之一,文章总结了有关功能词和内容词神经机制的研究成果,目的是为从事相关研究的国内同行提供一些借鉴。主要的结论是：功能词和内容词的加工方式可能不同,从而引起不同ERP成分,主要包括N280,N400和N400-700等;内容词的加工可能涉及两个大脑半球的相关脑区,而功能词的加工则可能只涉及大脑左半球的某些脑区。

关键词: 功能词, 内容词, 神经机制, ERP, fMRI

Abstract: An important issue in the cognitive psychology is whether the linguistic distinction between content and function words are reflected by the correlate neural involved in processing these two vocabulary classes. The recent literature about the neural mechanism of function and content words was summarized in this article. The main conclusions are: the processing mechanism of function and words may be different, which is indexed by different ERP components they elicited; the processing of content words may involve two brain hemispheres, while that of function words may mainly involve left hemisphere.

Key words: function words, content words, neural mechanism, ERP, fMRI

中图分类号:

B842.1

郭桃梅,彭聃龄. 功能词与内容词加工的神经机制的研究综述[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2005, 3(1): 65-69.

Guo Taomei,Peng Danling. A REVIEW OF THE NEURAL MECHANISM OF FUNCTION AND CONTENT WORDS[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2005, 3(1): 65-69.

参考文献

[1] Bradley D C, Garrett M F, Zurif E B. Syntactic defecits in Broca′s aphasia. In: Caplan D. (Ed.), Biological studies of mental processes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1980: 269~286
[2] Friederici A D. Levels of processing and vocabulary types: evidence from on-line comprehension in normals and agrammatics. Cognition, 1985, 9: 133~166
[3] Fromkin V A. Introduction to special issue: Linguistic representational and processing analysis of agrammatism. Brain and Language, 1995, 50: 1~9
[4] Pulvermuller F, Lutzenberger W, Birbaumer N. Electrocortical distinction of vocabulary types. Electroenceph-alograph Clinical Neurophysiology, 1995, 94(5): 357~370
[5] Biassou N K,Obler L, Nespoulous J L, et al. Dual processing of open-and closed-class words. Brain and Language, 1997, 57: 360~373
[6] Bird H, Franklin S, Howard D. ′Little words′-not really: function and content words in normal and aphasic speech. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 2002, 15: 209~237
[7] Bradley D C, Garrett M F. Hemisphere differences in the recognition of closed and open class words. Neuropsychologia, 1983, 21: 155~159
[8] Chiarello C, Nuding S. Visual field effects for processing content and function words. Neuropsychologia, 1987, 25: 539~548
[9] Segalowitz S J, Lane K C. Lexical access of function versus content words. Brain and Language, 2000, 75, 376~389
[10] Neville H J, Mills D L, Lawson D S. Fractionating language: different neural subsystems with different sensitive periods. Cerebral Cortex, 1992, 2: 244~258
[11] Nobre A C, McCarthy G. Language-related EPRs: scalp distributions and modulation by word type and semantic priming. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 1994, 6: 233~255
[12] King J W, Kutas M A. Brain potential whose latency indexes the length and frequency of words. The News-letter of the Center for Research in Language, 1995, 10(2): 1~9
[13] Osterhaut L, Bersick M, McKinnon R. Brain potentials elicited by words: Word length and frequency predict the latency of an early negativity. Biology Psychology, 1997, 46(2): 143~168
[14] Brown C M, Hagoort P, Ter Keurs M. Electrophysiological signatures of visual lexical processing: Open-and closed-class words. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 1999, 11(3): 261~281
[15] Munte T F, Wieringa B M, Weyerts H, et al. Differences in brain potentials to open and closed class words: Class and frequency effects. Neuropsychologia, 2001, 39(1): 91~102
[16] Hinojosa J A, Martin-Loeches M, Casado P, et al. Semantic processing of open-and closed-class words: an event-related potentials study. Cognitive Brain Research, 2001, 11(3): 397~407
[17] Weber-Fox C, Neville H J. Sensitive periods differentiate processing of open-and closed-class words: an ERP study of bilinguals. Journal of Speech Language Hearing Research in 2001, 44(6): 1338~1353
[18] Takashima A, Ohta K, Matsushima E, et al. The event-related potentials elicited by content and function words during the reading of sentences by patients with schizophrenia. Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 2001, 55(6): 611~618
[19] Ter-Keurs M, Brown C M, Hagoort P, et al. Electro-physiological manifestations of open-and closed-class words in patients with Broca′s aphasia with agrammatic comprehension: An event-related brain potential study. Brain, 1999, 122: 839~854
[20] Ni W, Constable R T, Mencl E, et al. An event-related neuroimaging study distinguishing form and content in sentence processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 2000, 12(1): 120~133
[21] Friederici A D, Opitz B, von Cramon D Y. Segregating semantic and syntacitc aspects of processing in the human brain: an fMRI investigation of different word types. Cerebral Cortex, 2000, 10: 698~705
[22] Sakai K L, Homae F, Hashimoto R. Sentence processing is uniquely human. Neuroscience Research, 2003, 46: 273~279