6533b85cfe1ef96bd12bd47c

RESEARCH PRODUCT

Beyond the amygdala: Linguistic threat modulates peri-sylvian semantic access cortices

Hong PanNancy IsenbergTracy ButlerDavid SilbersweigGary BrendelDaniel S. WeisholtzJoseph E. LedouxOliver TüscherJames C. RootJ. EpsteinEmily SternXenia ProtopopescuMartin Goldstein

subject

AdultMaleLinguistics and LanguageVisual perceptionAdolescentCognitive NeuroscienceNeocortexExperimental and Cognitive PsychologyAmygdalaBrain mappingArticleLanguage and LinguisticsYoung AdultSpeech and HearingFunctional neuroimagingAphasiaAphasiamedicineHumansPeriaqueductal GrayBrain MappingLanguage Testsmedicine.diagnostic_testFearAmygdalaMagnetic Resonance ImagingHealthy VolunteersLinguisticsFrontal LobeSemanticsmedicine.anatomical_structureFrontal lobeVisual PerceptionParahippocampal GyrusFemalemedicine.symptomPsychologyFunctional magnetic resonance imagingParahippocampal gyrusCognitive psychology

description

In this study, healthy volunteers were scanned using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to investigate the neural systems involved in processing the threatening content conveyed via visually presented “threat words.” The neural responses elicited by these words were compared to those elicited by matched neutral control words. The results demonstrate that linguistic threat, when presented in written form, can selectively engage areas of lateral temporal and inferior frontal cortex, distinct from the core language areas implicated in aphasia. Additionally, linguistic threat modulates neural activity in visceral/emotional systems (amygdala, parahippocampal gyrus and periaqueductal gray), and at earlier stages of the visual-linguistic processing stream involved in visual word form representations (ventral occipitotemporal cortex). We propose a model whereby limbic activation modulates activity at multiple nodes along the visual-linguistic-semantic processing stream, including a perisylvian “semantic access network” involved in decoding word meaning, suggesting a dynamic interplay between feedforward and feedback processes.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2015.10.004