Human communicative competence is based on the ability to process a specific class of mental states, namely communicative intention. The present fMRI study aims to analyze whether intention processing is affected by the expressive means through which a communicative intention is conveyed, i.e., the linguistic or extralinguistic gestural means. Combined factorial and conjunction analyses were used to test two sets of predictions: first, that a common brain network is recruited for the comprehension of communicative intentions independently of the modality through which they are conveyed; second, that additional brain areas are specifically recruited depending on the communicative modality employed, reflecting distinct sensorimotor gateways. Our results clearly showed that a common neural network is engaged in communicative intention processing independently of the modality employed. This network includes the precuneus, the left and right posterior superior temporal sulcus and temporo-parietal junction, and the medial prefrontal cortex. Additional brain areas outside those involved in intention processing are specifically engaged by the particular communicative modality, i.e., a perisylvian language network for the linguistic modality and a sensorimotor network for the extralinguistic modality. Thus common representation of communicative intention may be accessed by modality-specific gateways, which are distinct for linguistic vs. extralinguistic expressive means. Taken together, our results indicate that the information acquired by different communicative modalities is equivalent from a mental processing standpoint, in particular, at the point at which the actor’s communicative intention has to be reconstructed.

Intention processing in communication: A common brain network for language and gestures.

ENRICI, Ivan;ADENZATO, Mauro;BARA, Bruno Giuseppe;
2011-01-01

Abstract

Human communicative competence is based on the ability to process a specific class of mental states, namely communicative intention. The present fMRI study aims to analyze whether intention processing is affected by the expressive means through which a communicative intention is conveyed, i.e., the linguistic or extralinguistic gestural means. Combined factorial and conjunction analyses were used to test two sets of predictions: first, that a common brain network is recruited for the comprehension of communicative intentions independently of the modality through which they are conveyed; second, that additional brain areas are specifically recruited depending on the communicative modality employed, reflecting distinct sensorimotor gateways. Our results clearly showed that a common neural network is engaged in communicative intention processing independently of the modality employed. This network includes the precuneus, the left and right posterior superior temporal sulcus and temporo-parietal junction, and the medial prefrontal cortex. Additional brain areas outside those involved in intention processing are specifically engaged by the particular communicative modality, i.e., a perisylvian language network for the linguistic modality and a sensorimotor network for the extralinguistic modality. Thus common representation of communicative intention may be accessed by modality-specific gateways, which are distinct for linguistic vs. extralinguistic expressive means. Taken together, our results indicate that the information acquired by different communicative modalities is equivalent from a mental processing standpoint, in particular, at the point at which the actor’s communicative intention has to be reconstructed.
2011
23
2415
2431
Enrici I.; Adenzato M.; Cappa S.; Bara B.G.; Tettamanti M.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
JoCN_2011.pdf

Accesso aperto

Tipo di file: PDF EDITORIALE
Dimensione 456.5 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
456.5 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2318/91621
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 31
  • Scopus 74
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 68
social impact