Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31840590›Full record

ArticlePhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2020

The meaning-making mechanism(s) behind the eyes and between the ears.

Peter Hagoort

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Neural encoding of semantic structures during sentence production.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Minimal Phrase Composition Revealed by Intracranial Recordings.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Modelling meaning composition from formalism to mechanism.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2020
    Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Peter HagoortMax Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, PO Box 310, 6500 AH Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this contribution, the following four questions are discussed: (i) where is meaning?; (ii) what is meaning?; (iii) what is the meaning of mechanism?; (iv) what are the mechanisms of meaning? I will argue that meanings are in the head. Meanings have multiple facets, but minimally one needs to make a distinction between single word meanings (lexical meaning) and the meanings of multi-word utterances. The latter ones cannot be retrieved from memory, but need to be constructed on the fly. A mechanistic account of the meaning-making mind requires an analysis at both a functional and a neural level, the reason being that these levels are causally interdependent. I will show that an analysis exclusively focusing on patterns of brain activation lacks explanatory power. Finally, I shall present an initial sketch of how the dynamic interaction between temporo-parietal areas and inferior frontal cortex might instantiate the interpretation of linguistic utterances in the context of a multimodal setting and ongoing discourse information. This article is part of the theme issue 'Towards mechanistic models of meaning composition'.

Indexed as

Ocular Physiological PhenomenaBrainBrain MappingComprehensionEarEyeFrontal LobeHumansLanguageLinguisticsMemoryTemporal Lobebrainlanguagemeaningmechanismtop-down causation

Identifiers

PMID31840590
PMCPMC6939349

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.