Principled Neural Partitions Among Aspects of Artifact and Action Concepts Citation Leshinskaya, Anna. 2015. Principled Neural Partitions Among Aspects of Artifact and Action Concepts. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, Graduate School of Arts & Sciences. Permanent link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:17467200 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of-use#LAA Share Your Story The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Submit a story . Accessibility Principled neural partitions among aspects of artifact and action concepts Adissertationpresented by AnnaLeshinskaya to TheDepartmentofPsychology Inpartialfulfillmentoftherequirements forthedegreeof DoctorofPhilosophy inthesubjectof Psychology HarvardUniversity Cambridge,Massachusetts May2015 ©2015–AnnaLeshinskaya allrightsreserved. Thesisadvisor: ProfessorAlfonsoCaramazza AnnaLeshinskaya Principled neural partitions among aspects of artifact and action concepts Abstract Theresearchinthisdissertationinvestigatestheneuralimplementationofconcep- tualknowledge:alevelofrepresentationcharacterizedbybroadgeneralityandinde- pendencefromallsensoryormotorchannels.Decadesofneuropsychologicalwork haveestablishedthatconceptualknowledgeisnotrepresentedinasingleneurallocus, butratheracrossmultipleneuralloci,andthattheselociareoftencontent-selective: theyareresponsibleforcertainaspectsofconceptualknowledge(e.g.,animals;color) morethanothers.Onwhatbasisarethesepartitionsdelineated,andwhatdetermines theircorticallocations?Thepresentworkattemptstounravelsomeoftheseprinciples byidentifyingneurallocithatrepresentnon-concreteattributesofactionandartifact concepts,suchasfunctions,intentions,andoutcomes.Asinvestigatedhere,theseas- pectsofconceptsarenotreducibletoanyparticularsensoryormotorqualities.This isbeneficialintwoways.First,itpresentsanessentialtestcaseforadominanttheory ofneuralorganizationofconcepts,whichproposesthatconceptualknowledgeisor- ganizedbythesensorymodalitythoseconceptsreferto.Second,ithelpsovercomea methodologicalissueinfunctionalmagneticresonanceimaging:thedifficultyofdis- sociatingconceptualrepresentationsfromlower-level/sensory-motorassociates.The focusonnon-concretepropertiesenabledustoovercomethischallenge.Ourfind- ingsrevealthatdistinctportionsoftheinferiorparietalloberepresentfunctionsof artifactsandintentions/outcomesofactions.Thissuggeststhatdifferentaspectsof non-concreteconceptualknowledgearerepresentedinspatiallydistinctneuralareas, implyingthatneuralorganizingfactorscanbeabstract.Furthermore,thecorticallo- cationsoftheseaspectsofconceptswereadjacenttocomputationallyrelatedcogni- tivesystems:outcomesofactionswerenearanareainvolvedintheoryofmind,and iii Thesisadvisor: ProfessorAlfonsoCaramazza AnnaLeshinskaya functionswerenearanareapreviouslyshowntobeinvolvedinphysicalmanipulation knowledgeoftools.Theseobservationssuggestthatconceptualknowledgeisneurally localizedaccordingtocomputationalconsiderations:conceptsarelocalizednearto cognitivecomponentsthatrelyonthoseconceptsfortheiroperation iv Contents 1 GeneralIntroduction 1 1.1 Overview:Guidingquestionsaboutthesemanticsystem . . . . . . . . 1 1.2 Evidencefromneuropsychology:Whatarethepartitionsinsemanticmem- ory? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.3 Themethodologicalchallenge:targetingsemanticrepresentationswith fMRI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1.4 Approach:usingnon-concreteattributestostudysemanticorganization 7 1.5 Theimportanceofnon-concreteattributesforcognition . . . . . . . . 8 1.6 Focus:functionsandintentionsastypesofnon-concreteattributes . . 10 1.7 Hypothesisspace:whatcanlocationtellusaboutorganizingprinciples? 12 1.8 Nextsteps:whatisunknownabouttheneurallocationsoffunctionsand intentions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 1.9 Summaryofthegeneralintroduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 2 Non-motoraspectsofactionconcepts 27 2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 2.2 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 2.3 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 2.4 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 3 Abstractcategoriesoffunctionsinanteriorparietallobe 60 3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 3.2 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 3.3 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 3.4 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 4 Aspectsofactionandartifactconcepts 93 4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 4.2 Experiment1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 4.3 Experiment2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 4.4 Experiment3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 v 4.5 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 5 GeneralDiscussion 148 5.1 Kindsofpartitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 5.2 Topographyofpartitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 5.3 Implicationsforcognitivearchitecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 5.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 vi Acknowledgments Thebiggestpartofthiswork–thelearningprocess–mightnotbereadilyvisiblein theproductthatemergedfromit.Theseinternaltransitionsinmyownthinkingand abilities,andtheexperiencesandtransitionsthemselves,arewhatIammostgrateful for.AndforthisIhavetothankmanypeople.Mostgratitudeisowedtomyadvisor, AlfonsoCaramazza.Takingmeonasastudent,inwhatcouldonlyhavebeenaleapof faith,iswhatallowedmetostartthisjourney;andallowedmetobelievethatIcouldbe capableofit.Hethenletthereignslooseenoughtoallowmetopursuethequestions Iwantedtoask.Herepeatedlywarnedmeaboutthepossibleperilsofthisenterprise, butthisonlystokedmydeterminationtodoit:itforcedmetosummoneveryounce ofdrivethatIcouldharness.Andateveryturn,Ihadtobesureofmyfooting.When- everIcametoAlfonsoataforkintheroad,he’dsitbackandask,“well,whatisthe experimentyouwanttodo?”IappreciatedtheownershipAlfonsoallowedmetotake overmywork.Whetheroutoffaithorfatigue,itiswhathelpedmegetpastthefail- uresalongtheway.Onecan’tacquirelearnedhelplessnesswhentheprocessisinone’s control.SoIlearnedperseveranceinstead.Mostlythough,whatIlearnedfromAl- fonsowashowtothinkabouttheoriesandtheprocessoftestingthem,andhowtoask questions–particularly,thosethatpokeattheflooronwhichonebuildstheirtheories andexperiments;thatis,thethefloorofassumptionsandinheritedideas,whichoften bypassscrutiny.IlearnedequallymuchfromthemembersoftheCognitiveNeuropsy- chologyLab.Inmyfirstyear,IwasluckyenoughtoworkwithMariusPeelen(now amemberofthethesiscommittee),whopatientlyguidedmeinmylearningofdata analysisandexperimentaldesign.Hegavemeacognitivetool-kitforthinkingabout neuroimagingdataandformakingmethodologicaldecisionsinprincipledways;he taughtmetoreasonaboutmethods,ratherthanlookforpre-definedsolutions.This servedmethroughtherestofmygraduatecareer.Iwasalsoluckyenoughto‘growup’ vii inthelabwithStefanoAnzellotti.Ilearnedanincredibleamountfromhim,andwith him,duringourtimetogether.HavingapeertowhomIcouldbringmybiggestuncer- tainties,andwhosereasoningIquicklycametotrustfully,wasawonderfulsourceof support.IappreciatemostofallhowStefanoalwaysunderstoodevenmymostpoorly communicatedthoughtsinlabmeetingandtranslatedthemtoeveryonewithgreater eloquenceandinsightthatIcouldhaveevermustered.Ihavemanylabmembersto thankfortheirmentorship:JorgeAlmeida,TomMcKeeff,LiubaPapeo,Domenica Romagno,AngelicaLingnau,NickOosterhofandTaliaKonkle.Theywerealwaysa sourceofinspirationforme,andhelpedmesolvemanyproblemsalongtheway.In particular,IappreciatedTalia’sconstantwillingnesstoofferguidance,totalkthrough complexanalysisproblems,andtoaskexcitingandconstructivequestions.Herun- abatedenthusiasmandencouragementofeveryoneinthelabwasagreatsourceof supportandlabspirit.IalsowanttothankNickOosterhofformuchmethodological guidance—evengoingasfarasoptimizingmycodetoruntentimefasteronaweek- end;andLiubaPapeoforbeingarolemodel,mentor,hotelroommate(eveninthe worstofconditions),andfriend.Frommysecondyearonwards,Ialsohadthepleasure ofSusanCarey’smentorshipandencouragement.Herenthusiasm,andbeliefinthe importanceofunderstandingconceptualknowledge,wereessentialmypursuitofthis lineofresearchandanywill-powertogetthroughtimesofdiscouragement–Iwouldgo toSusanintheworstoftimesandcomeoutfeelingexcitedagain.Herthinkingabout conceptsisthemostprecisethatIhavefoundinthefield.Learningfromher—inpar- ticular,throughtheDevelopmentalProseminarcourse–hasbeenahugetreasure.I alsolearnedanenormousamountfrommypeersandcollaborators.Istillremember thedaythatJuanManuelContrerassatmedowntolunchtotalkaboutpatternanal- ysismethods,andwecameoutwithanexperimentideathatwecarriedthroughto completion(thoughnotinthisthesis).However,throughthatcollaborationwashow Imadethemostgreatleapsinmytechnicalabilitiesandcreativity,andIthankJuan Manuelgreatlyforpushingustoalwaysbebetter—cleanerdata,fastercode,betterde- signs,andbolderideas.Isoenjoyedthejourneywetooktogether.I’malsogratefulto AlekChakroffforthemanytheoreticalandmethodologicaldiscussionswehadinany andeverycontext(car,bus,seaplane,kayak,bar,island,beach,hikingtrail),andfor themuch-neededproof-reading,practice-talkfeedback,andlistening.Ialsowantto thankAmySkerry,DonalCahill,RomanFeiman,StevenFrankland,JorieKoster-Hale, viii MarkThornton,MichaelCohen,MaryamVaziriPashkam,ElinorAmit,andBriaLong forstimulatingdiscussionsanddebatesoncognitivesciencethatwereaspleasurable astheywereinsightful.Ialsowanttothankthemanyotherprofessorswhoservedas mentorsthroughouttheseyears.RebeccaSaxetaughtmehowtothinkcriticallyyet constructivelyabouttheneuroscienceofhigherlevelcognition,andwasawonderful sourceoffeedbackformywork.IlearnedahugeamountfromherandNancyKan- wisher’scoursesonneuroimaging,bothaboutmethodologybutmoreimportantly, aboutthemeta-questionsinourfield,aboutwhichquestionsareexciting,andinwhich directionweneedtopushourmethodstobeabletoanswerthem.IalsothankJason Mitchellforhisguidanceandsupportduringourhighlyproductivecollaboration. AndIthankJoshGreeneforservingonthecommittee,andofferinghisinvaluable feedbackandwarmencouragement.Fromthepragmaticside,noneofthisworkwould havebeenpossiblewithouttheexcellentneuroimagingstaff,researchassistants,and administratorswhosupportedit.TammyMoranandRossMairrunprobablythe mostefficientscanningcenteranywhere,andtheydideverythingtheycouldtoensure thatscanningwasalwayssmoothandsafe.MyfavoritemomentwaswatchingTammy changetheprojectorlight-bulbinthemiddleofascan,anddespiteneverhavingdone sobefore,andwithsuchspeedandefficiencythatoursubjectneverhadtoleavethe scanner.Ialsogreatlybenefitedfromwonderfulresearchassistantsandstaff:PetraPa- jtas,SilviaUbaldi,ValentinaBrentari,andEvaNaldiniStrausberg,whoalwaysworked relentlesslytokeepthelabrunning.IalsothankCeliaRaiafororchestratingthegradu- ateprogramwithefficiencyandgrace.Iworkedwithmanytalentedundergraduatesin thelab,includingAndrewMessing,JoyceZhou,IsobelGreen,AlanRozet,andGabbie Guigliano.Itwasapleasuretoworkwithsuchamotivatedandtalentedsetofpeople! Finally,IthanktheNaturalSciencesandEngineeringCouncilofCanada,theMind, Brain,andBehaviorInterfacultyInitiative,andtheNormalAndersonFundatHarvard Universityforfundingthiswork.Onthepersonalside,Iwanttothankmymother, NinaLeshinskaya,forgivingmeeverything.Ican’tthinkofathingshedidn’tsacri- ficeformewhenshecould,sothatIcouldhavethebestopportunities.Shetaughtme tovalueknowledgeandlearning,andalwaysencouragedmetopursuewhatismost intellectuallyvaluable–notjustwhatismostprofitableormostfashionable.Ioweto herallofthesuccessandhappinessthatIhavefoundinlife.IalsowanttothankJon Leckmanforloving,enduring,andlettingmego.Tomyincrediblefriendsandcom- ix
Description: