Search

Thematic role assignment - generally, figuring out who did what to whom - is a critical component of sentence comprehension, which is influenced by both syntactic and semantic cues. Conflict between these cues can result in temporary consideration of multiple incompatible interpretations during real-time sentence processing. We tested whether the resolution of syntax-semantics conflict can be expedited by the online engagement of cognitive control processes that are routinely used to regulate behavior across domains. In this study, cognitive control deployment from a previous Stroop trial influenced eye movements during subsequent sentence comprehension. Specifically, when syntactic and semantic cues competed for influence on interpretation, dynamic cognitive control engagement led to (a) fewer overall looks to a picture illustrating the competing but incorrect interpretation (Experiment 1), or (b) steeper growth in looks to a picture illustrating the correct interpretation (Experiment 2). Thus, prior cognitive control engagement facilitated the resolution of syntax-semantics conflict by biasing processing towards the intended analysis. This conflict adaptation effect demonstrates a causal connection between cognitive control and real-time thematic role assignment. Broader patterns demonstrated that prior cognitive control engagement also modulated sentence processing irrespective of the presence of conflict, reflecting increased integration of newly arriving cues with prior sentential content. Together, the results suggest that cognitive control helps listeners determine correct event roles during real-time comprehension., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Regions within the left inferior frontal gyrus (LIFG) have simultaneously been implicated in syntactic processing and cognitive control. Accounts attempting to unify LIFG's function hypothesize that, during comprehension, cognitive control resolves conflict between incompatible representations of sentence meaning. Some studies demonstrate co-localized activity within LIFG for syntactic and non-syntactic conflict resolution, suggesting domain-generality, but others show non-overlapping activity, suggesting domain-specific cognitive control and/or regions that respond uniquely to syntax. We propose however that examining exclusive activation sites for certain contrasts creates a false dichotomy: both domain-general and domain-specific neural machinery must coordinate to facilitate conflict resolution across domains. Here, subjects completed four diverse tasks involving conflict -one syntactic, three non-syntactic- while undergoing fMRI. Though LIFG consistently activated within individuals during conflict processing, functional connectivity analyses revealed task-specific coordination with distinct brain networks. Thus, LIFG may function as a conflict-resolution "hub" that cooperates with specialized neural systems according to information content., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)