ArticleImaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)
A common framework for semantic memory and semantic composition.
Article in Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- GRASP: a response-locked paradigm that reveals low-beta desynchronisation is a participant-invariant signature of semantic decoding in EEG.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2026Article
- Mechanisms of semantic composition in older adults: control, semantic processing, and imagery.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
How the brain constructs meaning from individual words and phrases is a fundamental question for research in semantic cognition, language, and their disorders. These two aspects of meaning are traditionally studied separately, resulting in two large, multi-method literatures, which we sought to bring together in this study. Not only would this address basic cognitive questions of how semantic cognition operates but also because, despite their distinct focuses, both literatures ascribe a critical role to the anterior temporal lobe (ATL) in each aspect of semantics. Given these considerations, we explored the notion that these systems rely on common underlying computational principles when activating conceptual semantic representations via single words, versus building a coherent semantic representation across sequences of words. The present pre-registered study used magnetoencephalography and electroencephalography to track brain activity in participants reading nouns and adjective-noun phrases, while integrating conceptual variables from both literatures: the concreteness of nouns (e.g., "lettuce" vs. "fiction") and the denotational semantics of adjectives (subsective vs. privative, e.g., "bad" vs. "fake"). Region-of-interest analyses show that bilateral ATLs responded more strongly to phrases at different time points, irrespective of concreteness. Decoding analyses on ATL signals further revealed a time-varying representational format for adjective semantics, whereas representations of noun concreteness were more stable and maintained for around 300 ms. Further, the neural representation of noun concreteness was modulated by the preceding adjectives: decoders learning concreteness signals in single words generalised better to subsective relative to privative phrases. These findings point to a unified ATL function for semantic memory and composition.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.