Current Research

Overview: Lab philosophy

Research in our lab seeks to understand the basic mechanisms of cognitive and perceptual processing, particularly in the domain of spoken language. We focus on spoken language because it lies at the intersection of basic perceptual and higher-level cognitive processing – drawing on both and elucidating the core principles that span all of cognitive function. Our research follows three core tenets:

1. Show me the model. A verbal account can be taken to predict (or not predict) just about any observed pattern, especially when the account posits complex interactions between multiple processes. We use computational models to concretely instantiate our verbal theories so they can be tested and used to make new predictions.

2. The same and not the same. No two people have exactly the same cognitive system. How individuals differ provides unique insights into cognitive processes. We study individual differences in their many and varied forms: differences among typical college students, differences due to normal development and aging, differences induced by neurological damage such as stroke, and atypical development such as autism spectrum disorders. (This tenet’s title is borrowed from Dr. Roald Hoffmann’s wonderful book, we hope he doesn’t mind.)

3. Methods for the madness. When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. We try to improve and expand the set of tools available to cognitive neuroscientists and neuropsychologists. This includes statistical methods for analysis of time course data (GCA) and for correction for multiple comparisons in lesion-symptom mapping (cFWER), and a large web-based database to facilitate the use of cognitive neuropsychological methods in the study of language and cognition (MAPPD).

Current projects apply these tenets to several inter-related research projects:

Processing and representation of semantic knowledge

There are two kinds of things we know about (object) concepts: their features, which tell us taxonomic information about the object (that an apple is a fruit, that it is the same kind of thing as a pear or a peach, that it is round and edible, etc.), and the events or situations in which they participate, which tell us thematic information about the object (that apples grow on trees and ripen in the fall, that they can be baked into pies or made into cider, that they sometimes have worms inside, etc.). Our initial studies in this area found that feature-based similarity predicts the degree of activation during word recognition (Mirman & Magnuson, 2009b) and that distinctive semantic features (ones that are relatively unusual) play a particularly important role in processing of word meanings (Mirman & Magnuson, 2009a). We then found that taxonomic and thematic semantic knowledge have different time courses of activation (Kalenine, Mirman, Middleton, & Buxbaum, 2012), that individuals exhibit consistent differences in strength of taxonomic vs. thematic knowledge (Mirman & Graziano, 2012a). We also found evidence that these two kinds of knowledge are neuroanatomically distinct, with the anterior temporal lobe playing a particularly important role in taxonomic semantics and the temporo-parietal cortex playing a particularly important role in thematic semantics (Schwartz et al., 2011; Mirman & Graziano, 2012b). Our recent systematic review brought together behavioral, computational, and neuroscience evidence that taxonomic and thematic semantic systems are distinct and proposed neuro-computational principles that may drive this distinction (Mirman, Landrigan, & Britt, in press). We are delving deeper into this distinction to try to understand its functional basis and the reason for the apparent neuroanatomic specialization.

Lesion-symptom mapping the organization of the spoken language system

Identifying relationships between location of brain damage and cognitive deficits is a foundational method in cognitive neuroscience, tracing its history at least to the behavioral neurologists of the mid-19th century. Advances in neuroimaging technology have made possible finer-grained analyses at the level of individual voxels. In recent work, we combined voxel-based lesion-symptom mapping with factor analysis of extensive behavioral assessments to identify two major divisions within the language system: meaning vs. form and recognition vs. production, and their instantiation in the brain. Phonological form deficits were associated with lesions in peri-Sylvian regions, whereas semantic production and recognition deficits were associated with damage to the left anterior temporal lobe and white matter connectivity with frontal cortex, respectively (Mirman et al., 2015a). We also replicated these results using a multivariate lesion-symptom mapping technique based on support-vector regression (Mirman et al., 2015b). We are continuing to develop lesion-symptom mapping methods and to use them to answer basic and applied research questions on the neural bases of language and language disorders.

Emeritus

These projects are not currently active, but remain interests in the lab:
  • Word learning, plasticity, and aphasia recovery
  • Competition and cooperation among co-activated representations, and the role of cognitive control in spoken language
  • Interactivity