NEUROMODULATION IN SEMANTIC RESEARCH: A NEW PERSPECTIVE

Abstract

Neuromodulation techniques, such as transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), have emerged as powerful tools for understanding the neural representations of various language processing processes. This review comprehensively examines the role of increasingly frequent neuromodulation research in linguistic inquiries and its effects on semantic processes over the past two decades. The study addresses the impact of neuromodulation techniques on semantic processes including lexical access, semantic context integration, and conceptual mapping. A literature review was conducted using search terms such as "TMS," "tDCS," "lexical access," "semantic context integration," and "conceptual mapping" across databases like PubMed and Google Scholar to identify relevant and current studies in the field. The search results were compiled through annual classification of studies and examination of topic-specific contents. The review reveals that research on semantic systems involving neuromodulation highlights the significant roles of not only the frontal, temporal, and parietal regions in the left hemisphere, but also the right hemisphere and even the cerebellum in semantic processing. Additionally, it is evident that neuromodulation techniques have become a crucial research tool for investigating the relationship between language and communication through various aspects of the brain. Future studies are expected to further detail the effects of these techniques on a broader range of language processing processes. This review aims to inspire and encourage linguists to explore language through these dynamic and rapidly evolving neuromodulation techniques.

Keywords

• semantic
• lexical access
• neuromodulation
• neurolinguistics

ANLAMBİLİM ARAŞTIRMALARINDA BEYİN UYARIMI: YENİ BİR PERSPEKTİF

Öz

Transkraniyal manyetik stimülasyon ve transkraniyal doğru akım stimülasyonu gibi beyin uyarım teknikleri, çeşitli dil işleme süreçlerinin beyindeki temsillerini anlamak üzere son yıllarda sıklıkla başvurulan yöntemler olarak ortaya çıkmıştır. Bu derleme çalışması, son yirmi yılda sıklığı giderek artan beyin uyarımı araştırmalarının dilbilimsel sorgulamalardaki rolünü ve semantik işlemler üzerindeki etkilerini kapsamlı bir şekilde incelemektedir. Çalışmada beyin uyarımı tekniklerinin sözcüksel erişim, semantik entegrasyon ve kavramsal eşleme gibi semantik süreçler üzerindeki etkileri ele alınmaktadır. Literatür taraması, bu alandaki güncel ve ilgili çalışmaları belirlemek amacıyla, "TMS", "tDCS", "lexical access", "semantic context integration" ve "conceptual mapping" gibi arama terimleri ile PubMed ve Google Scholar gibi veri tabanları kullanılarak gerçekleştirilmiştir. Arama sonuçları, çalışmaların yıllık bazda sınıflandırılması ve konuya özgü içeriklerin incelenmesiyle derlenmiştir. Derlemede beyin uyarımı ile yapılan semantik sisteme ilişkin araştırmalar, semantik işlemede rolü olduğu öne sürülen beynin sol yarıküresindeki frontal, temporal ve parietal alanların yanı sıra, sağ yarıküre ve hatta serebellum gibi bölgelerin bile semantik işlemlemede önemli rolleri olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Yanı sıra, beyin uyarımı tekniklerinin dil ve iletişim arasındaki ilişkiyi beynin çeşitli yönleriyle araştırmak için önemli bir araştırma aracı haline geldiği açıkça gözlenmektedir. Gelecek çalışmaların, bu tekniklerin daha geniş bir yelpazede dil işleme süreçlerine olan etkilerini detaylandıracağı öngörülmektedir. Bu derlemenin, bu dinamik ve hızla gelişen beyin uyarımı teknikleri yoluyla dili araştırmak isteyen dilbilimcilere ilham vermesi ve onları teşvik etmesi amaçlanmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• anlambilim
• sözcüksel erişim
• beyin uyarımı
• sinirdilbilim

Kaynakça

1. Arrington, C. N., Ossowski, A. E., Baig, H., Persichetti, E., & Morris, R. (2023). The impact of transcranial magnetic stimulation on reading processes: A systematic review. Neuropsychology review, 33(1), 255-277.
2. Bakhtiar, M., Yeung, T. W. Y., & Choi, A. (2024). The application of neuronavigated rTMS of the supplementary motor area and rhythmic speech training for stuttering intervention. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders.
3. Barsalou, L. W., Santos, A., Simmons, W. K., & Wilson, C. D. (2008). Language and simulation in conceptual processing. Symbols, embodiment, and meaning, 245–283.
4. Bikson, M., Grossman, P., Thomas, C., Zannou, A. L., Jiang, J., Adnan, T., ... & Woods, A. J. (2016). Safety of transcranial direct current stimulation: evidence based update 2016. Brain stimulation, 9(5), 641–661.
5. Binder, J. R., & Desai, R. H. (2011). The neurobiology of semantic memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(11), 527–536.
6. Blagovechtchenski, E., Gnedykh, D., Kurmakaeva, D., Mkrtychian, N., Kostromina, S., & Shtyrov, Y. (2019). Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) of Wernicke's and Broca's areas in studies of language learning and word acquisition. JoVE (Journal of Visualized Experiments), (149), e59159.
7. Bohrn, I. C., Altmann, U., & Jacobs, A. M. (2012). Looking at the brains behind figurative language—A quantitative meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies on metaphor, idiom, and irony processing. Neuropsychologia, 50(11), 2669–2683.
8. Borodkin, K., Gassner, T., Ershaid, H., & Amir, N. (2022). tDCS modulates speech perception and production in second language learners. Scientific Reports, 12(1), 16212.

9. Burge, T. (1973). Reference and proper names. Journal of Philosophy, 70(14), 425–439.
10. Corina, D. P., Loudermilk, B. C., Detwiler, L., Martin, R. F., Brinkley, J. F., & Ojemann, G. (2010). Analysis of naming errors during cortical stimulation mapping: implications for models of language representation. Brain and language, 115(2), 101–112.
11. Devlin, J. T., & Watkins, K. E. (2007). Stimulating language: insights from TMS. Brain, 130(3), 610–622.
12. Duffau, H., Herbet, G., & Moritz-Gasser, S. (2013). Toward a pluri-component, multimodal, and dynamic organization of the ventral semantic stream in humans: lessons from stimulation mapping in awake patients. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 7, 44.
13. Fertonani, A., Rosini, S., Cotelli, M., Rossini, P. M., & Miniussi, C. (2010). Naming facilitation induced by transcranial direct current stimulation. Behavioural brain research, 208(2), 311–318.
14. Flöel, A., Rösser, N., Michka, O., Knecht, S., & Breitenstein, C. (2008). Noninvasive brain stimulation improves language learning. Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 20(8), 1415–1422.
15. Friederici, A. D. (2002). Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing. Trends in cognitive sciences, 6(2), 78–84.
16. Gatti, D., Van Vugt, F., & Vecchi, T. (2020). A causal role for the cerebellum in semantic integration: a transcranial magnetic stimulation study. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 18139.
17. Gorno-Tempini, M. L., Dronkers, N. F., Rankin, K. P., Ogar, J. M., Phengrasamy, L., Rosen, H. J., ... & Miller, B. L. (2004). Cognition and anatomy in three variants of primary progressive aphasia. Annals of Neurology: Official Journal of the American Neurological Association and the Child Neurology Society, 55(3), 335–346.
18. Gorno-Tempini, M. L., Murray, R. C., Rankin, K. P., Weiner, M. W., & Miller, B. L. (2004). Clinical, cognitive and anatomical evolution from nonfluent progressive aphasia to corticobasal syndrome: a case report. Neurocase, 10(6), 426–436.
19. Hallett, M. (2007). Transcranial magnetic stimulation: a primer. Neuron, 55(2), 187–199.
20. Häuser, K. I., Titone, D. A., & Baum, S. R. (2016). The role of the ventro-lateral prefrontal cortex in idiom comprehension: An rTMS study. Neuropsychologia, 91, 360–370.
21. Hickok, G., & Poeppel, D. (2007). The cortical organization of speech processing. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 8(5), 393–402.
22. Jackendoff, R. S. (1992). Semantic structures (Vol. 18). MIT press.
23. Joyal, M., & Fecteau, S. (2016). Transcranial direct current stimulation effects on semantic processing in healthy individuals. Brain Stimulation, 9(5), 682–691.
24. Kana, R. K., Murdaugh, D. L., Wolfe, K. R., & Kumar, S. L. (2012). Brain responses mediating idiom comprehension: Gender and hemispheric differences. Brain research, 1467, 18–26.
25. Kurada, H. Z., Arıca-Akkök, E., Özaydın-Aksun, Z., Şener, H. Ö., & Lavidor, M. (2021). The impact of transparency on hemispheric lateralization of idiom comprehension: An rTMS study. Neuropsychologia, 163, 108062.
26. Kurada, H. Z., Jimenez-Bravo, M., Giacobbe, C., & Obeso, I. (in press). Context, Transparency and Culture in Motor Resonance Phenomena: Causal Evidence of the Motor Cortex. Cortex.
27. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.
28. Lewis, G., & Poeppel, D. (2014). The role of visual representations during the lexical access of spoken words. Brain and language, 134, 1–10.
29. Liljeström, M., Tarkiainen, A., Parviainen, T., Kujala, J., Numminen, J., Hiltunen, J., ... & Salmelin, R. (2008). Perceiving and naming actions and objects. Neuroimage, 41(3), 1132–1141.
30. Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1987). Functional parallelism in spoken word-recognition. Cognition, 25(1-2), 71–102.
31. Mashal, N., & Kasirer, A. (2012). The relationship between visual metaphor comprehension and recognition of similarities in children with learning disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 33(6), 1741–1748.
32. Mashal, N., Faust, M., & Hendler, T. (2005). The role of the right hemisphere in processing nonsalient metaphorical meanings: Application of principal components analysis to fMRI data. Neuropsychologia, 43(14), 2084–2100.
33. Mashal, N., Faust, M., Hendler, T., & Jung-Beeman, M. (2007). An fMRI investigation of the neural correlates underlying the processing of novel metaphoric expressions. Brain and language, 100(2), 115–126.
34. Matchin, W., & Hickok, G. (2020). The cortical organization of syntax. Cerebral Cortex, 30(3), 1481–1498.
35. McCarty, M. J., ve diğ,. (2023). Intraoperative cortical localization of music and language reveals signatures of structural complexity in posterior temporal cortex. iScience, 26, 107223.
36. Mirman, D., & Britt, A. E. (2014). What we talk about when we talk about access deficits. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 369(1634), 20120388.
37. Moritz-Gasser, S., & Duffau, H. (2013). The anatomo-functional connectivity of word repetition: insights provided by awake brain tumor surgery. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 7, 405.
38. Moslemi, B., Chalabianloo, G., & Tabatabaei, M. (2022). The Effect of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) on Visual-Auditory Working Memory and Attention in Students with Dysgraphia. Journal of Exceptional Children, 22(3), 99–110.
39. Mottaghy, F. M., Hungs, M., Brugmann, M., Sparing, R., Boroojerdi, B., Foltys, H., & Topper, R. (1999). Facilitation of picture naming after repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation. Neurology, 53(8), 1806–1806.
40. Nitsche, M. A., Seeber, A., Frommann, K., Klein, C. C., Rochford, C., Nitsche, M. S., ... & Tergau, F. (2005). Modulating parameters of excitability during and after transcranial direct current stimulation of the human motor cortex. The Journal of physiology, 568(1), 291–303.
41. Ntemou, E., Svaldi, C., Jonkers, R., Picht, T., & Rofes, A. (2023). Verb and sentence processing with TMS: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cortex, 162, 38–55.
42. Ojemann, G. A. (2003). The neurobiology of language and verbal memory: observations from awake neurosurgery. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 48(2), 141–146.
43. Orthony, A. J. L. (1993). Metaphor, language, and thought. In A. Orthony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 1–16). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
44. Pandža, N. B. (2023). Using non-invasive brain stimulation to investigate second language. The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition and Neurolinguistics, 7–84.
45. Papagno, C., Oliveri, M., & Romero, L. (2002). Neural correlates of idiom comprehension. Cortex: A Journal Devoted to the Study of the Nervous System and Behavior.
46. Pascual-Leone, A. (1999). Transcranial magnetic stimulation: studying the brain--behaviour relationship by induction of ‘virtual lesions’. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 354(1387), 1229–1238.
47. Pascual-Leone, A., Valls-Solé, J., Wassermann, E. M., & Hallett, M. (1994). Responses to rapid-rate transcranial magnetic stimulation of the human motor cortex. Brain, 117(4), 847–858.
48. Pascual-Leone, A., Walsh, V., & Rothwell, J. (2000). Transcranial magnetic stimulation in cognitive neuroscience–virtual lesion, chronometry, and functional connectivity. Current opinion in neurobiology, 10(2), 232–237.
49. Perani, D., Cappa, S. F., Schnur, T., Tettamanti, M., Collina, S., Rosa, M. M., & others. (1999). The neural correlates of verb and noun processing: A PET study. Brain, 122(12), 2337–2344.
50. Pobric, G., Jefferies, E., & Ralph, M. A. L. (2010). Amodal semantic representations depend on both anterior temporal lobes: evidence from repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation. Neuropsychologia, 48(5), 1336–1342.
51. Pobric, G., Mashal, N., Faust, M., & Lavidor, M. (2008). The role of the right cerebral hemisphere in processing novel metaphoric expressions: a transcranial magnetic stimulation study. Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 20(1), 170–181.
52. Price, A. R., Peelle, J. E., Bonner, M. F., Grossman, M., & Hamilton, R. H. (2016). Causal evidence for a mechanism of semantic integration in the angular gyrus as revealed by high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation. Journal of Neuroscience, 36(13), 3829–3838.
53. Price, C. J. (2012). A review and synthesis of the first 20 years of PET and fMRI studies of heard speech, spoken language and reading. Neuroimage, 62(2), 816–847.
54. Pulvermüller, F., Kherif, F., Hauk, O., Mohr, B., & Nimmo‐Smith, I. (2009). Distributed cell assemblies for general lexical and category‐specific semantic processing as revealed by fMRI cluster analysis. Human brain mapping, 30(12), 3837–3850.
55. Ralph, M. A. L., Jefferies, E., Patterson, K., & Rogers, T. T. (2017). The neural and computational bases of semantic cognition. Nature reviews neuroscience, 18(1), 42–55.
56. Regel, S., Gunter, T. C., & Friederici, A. D. (2011). Isn't it ironic? An electrophysiological exploration of figurative language processing. Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 23(2), 277–293.
57. Rizzo, S., Sandrini, M., & Papagno, C. (2007). The dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in idiom interpretation: An rTMS study. Brain research bulletin, 71(5), 523–528.
58. Rossini, P. M., & Rossi, S. (2007). Transcranial magnetic stimulation: diagnostic, therapeutic, and research potential. Neurology, 68(7), 484–488.
59. Salvi, C., Beeman, M., Bikson, M., McKinley, R., & Grafman, J. (2020). TDCS to the right anterior temporal lobe facilitates insight problem-solving. Scientific reports, 10(1), 946.
60. Schmidt, G. L., DeBuse, C. J., & Seger, C. A. (2007). Right hemisphere metaphor processing? Characterizing the lateralization of semantic processes. Brain and language, 100(2), 127–141.
61. Schneider, S., Wagels, L., Haeussinger, F. B., Fallgatter, A. J., Ehlis, A. C., & Rapp, A. M. (2015). Haemodynamic and electrophysiological markers of pragmatic language comprehension in schizophrenia. The World Journal of Biological Psychiatry, 16(6), 398–410.
62. Seghier, M. L. (2013). The angular gyrus: multiple functions and multiple subdivisions. The Neuroscientist, 19(1), 43–61.
63. Sela, T., Ivry, R. B., & Lavidor, M. (2012). Prefrontal control during a semantic decision task that involves idiom comprehension: a transcranial direct current stimulation study. Neuropsychologia, 50(9), 2271–2280.
64. Sereno, S. C., & Rayner, K. (2003). Measuring word recognition in reading: eye movements and event-related potentials. Trends in cognitive sciences, 7(11), 489–493.
65. Shapiro, K. A., Moo, L. R., & Caramazza, A. (2006). Cortical signatures of noun and verb production. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 103(6), 1644–1649.
66. Spigarelli, M., Lalancette, A., Massé-Alarie, H., & Wilson, M. A. (2024). Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Action Naming in Aphasia Rehabilitation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Brain Sciences, 14(7), 665.
67. Strawson, P. F. (1950). On referring. Mind, 59(235), 320–344.
68. Timofeeva, P., Finisguerra, A., D’Argenio, G., García, A. M., Carreiras, M., Quiñones, I., & Amoruso, L. (2024). Switching off: disruptive TMS reveals distinct contributions of the posterior middle temporal gyrus and angular gyrus to bilingual speech production. Cerebral Cortex, 34(5), bhae188.
69. Vigneau, M., Beaucousin, V., Hervé, P. Y., Duffau, H., Crivello, F., Houde, O., ... & Tzourio-Mazoyer, N. (2006). Meta-analyzing left hemisphere language areas: phonology, semantics, and sentence processing. Neuroimage, 30(4), 1414–1432.
70. Vigneau, M., Beaucousin, V., Hervé, P. Y., Jobard, G., Petit, L., Crivello, F., ... & Tzourio-Mazoyer, N. (2011). What is right-hemisphere contribution to phonological, lexico-semantic, and sentence processing?: Insights from a meta-analysis. Neuroimage, 54(1), 577–593.
71. Warrington, E. K., & Cipolotti, L. (1996). Word comprehension: The distinction between refractory and storage impairments. Brain, 119(2), 611–625.
72. Weltman, K., & Lavidor, M. (2013). Modulating lexical and semantic processing by transcranial direct current stimulation. Experimental brain research, 226, 121–135.
73. Whitney, C., Kirk, M., O'Sullivan, J., Lambon Ralph, M. A., & Jefferies, E. (2012). Executive semantic processing is underpinned by a large-scale neural network: Revealing the contribution of left prefrontal, posterior temporal, and parietal cortex to controlled retrieval and selection using TMS. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 24(1), 133–147.
74. Yang, Y. H., Huang, T. R., & Yeh, S. L. (2022). Role of visual awareness on semantic integration of sequentially presented words: An fMRI study. Brain and Cognition, 164, 105916.