Aplicaciones de la neurofisiología cognitiva y la estimulación cerebral no invasiva al estudio del lenguaje

  1. Florencia Sanmartino
  2. Javier J. González-Rosa
Zeitschrift:
Pragmalinguistica

ISSN: 1133-682X

Datum der Publikation: 2020

Nummer: 28

Seiten: 188-211

Art: Artikel

DOI: 10.25267/PRAGMALINGUISTICA.2020.I28.10 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen Access editor

Andere Publikationen in: Pragmalinguistica

Zusammenfassung

Les potentiels liés aux événements (ERP) sont une méthode d'évaluation et de cartographie du cerveau qui nous permet de comprendre la dynamique temporelle du traitement de l'information, fournissant aux neurosciences un outil précieux pour examiner le traitement du langage chez les enfants et les adultes, ainsi que dans les troubles cérébraux où il y a un certain trouble du langage. Son utilisation nous permet de comprendre avec précision les marqueurs cérébraux impliqués dans des aspects aussi importants que l'acquisition ou l'intégration du langage et les inadéquations sémantiques et syntaxiques. D'autre part, l'utilisation des techniques de stimulation cérébrale non invasives représente une véritable révolution dans l'étude du langage, non seulement parce que nous disposons d'un outil puissant pour l'évaluation des réseaux cérébraux qui le facilitent ou l'inhibent, mais aussi parce qu'elle nous permet d'améliorer ou de corriger de manière substantielle l'apprentissage et les performances dans les tests de lecture et de compréhension ou de mémoire, tant dans les populations saines que dans les traitements de réadaptation dans les populations cliniques

Bibliographische Referenzen

  • BARKER, A. T. et al. (1985): “Non-invasive magnetic stimulation of human motor cortex”, The Lancet, 325(8437), pp. 1106-1107.
  • BARWOOD, C. H. et al. (2013): “Long term language recovery subsequent to low frequency rTMS in chronic non-fluent aphasia”, NeuroRehabilitation, 32(4), pp. 915-928.
  • BESTMANN, S. (2008): “The physiological basis of transcranial magnetic stimulation”, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(3), pp. 81-83.
  • BRESSLER, S. L. & DING, M. (2006): “Event-Related Potentials”, Akay, M. (ed.): Wiley Encyclopedia of Biomedical Engineering, New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., pp. 1-8.
  • CARRETIÉ, L. & IGLESIAS, J. (2008): Psico-fisiología: Fundamentos metodológi-cos, Madrid: Pirámide.
  • CATTANEO, L. (2013): “Language”, Lozano, A. M. & Hallett, M. (eds.): Handbook of Clinical Neurology, Amsterdam: Elsevier, 116, pp. 681-691.
  • CATTANEO, Z. et al. (2011): “Transcranial direct current stimulation over Broca’s region improves phonemic and semantic fluency in healthy individuals”, Neuroscience, 183, pp. 64–70.
  • CEPONIENE, R. et al. (2003): “Speech–sound-selective auditory impairment in children with autism: They can perceive but do not attend”, Proceed-ings of the National Academy of Sci-ences, 100(9), pp. 5567-5572.
  • CHEN, A. et al. (2016): “Auditory ERP response to successive stimuli in infancy”, PeerJ, 4, pp. 1580.
  • COHEN KADOSH, R. et al. (2010): “Modu-lating neuronal activity produces specific and long-lasting changes in numerical competence”, Current Bi-ology, 20(22), pp. 2016-2020.
  • COSTANZO, F. et al. (2016): “Reading changes in children and adolescents with dyslexia after transcranial direct current stimulation”, Neuroreport, 27(5), pp. 295-300. COULSON, S. et al. (1998): “Expect the unexpected: Event-related brain re-sponse to morphosyntactic viola-tions”, Language and Cognitive Pro-cesses, 13(1), pp. 21-58. DE VRIES, M. H. et al. (2010): “Electrical stimulation of Broca’s area enhances implicit learning of an artificial grammar”, Journal of Cognitive Neu-roscience, 22(11), pp. 2427–2436.
  • FLÖEL, A. et al. (2008): “Noninvasive brain stimulation improves language learning”, Journal of Cognitive Neu-roscience, 20(8), pp. 1415–1422.
  • FRAGA GONZÁLEZ, G. et al. (2017): “Contributions of letter-speech sound learning and visual print tuning to reading improvement: evidence from brain potential and dyslexia training studies”, Brain Sciences, 7, pp. 10.
  • FRIEDERICI, A. D. (2002): “Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing”, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(2), pp. 78–84.
  • FRIEDERICI, A. D. et al. (2007): “Brain responses in 4-month-old infants are already language specific”, Current Biology, 17(14), pp. 1208-1211.
  • FRIEDERICI, A. D. et al. (2002): “Distinct neurophysiological patterns reflect-ing aspects of syntactic complexity and syntactic repair”, Journal of Psy-cholinguistic Research, 31(1), pp. 45-63.
  • FRIEDERICI, A. D. et al. (1993): “Event-related brain potentials during natural speech processing: effects of semantic, morphological and syntactic violations”, Cognitive Brain Research, 1(3), pp. 183-192.
  • FRISCH, S. et al. (2002): “The P600 as an indicator of syntactic ambiguity”, Cognition, 85(3), pp. B83-92.
  • FRISCH, S. & SCHLESEWSKY, M. (2001): “The N400 reflects problems of the-matic hierarchizing”, NeuroReport, 12(15), pp. 3391–3394.
  • GARRIDO-VÁSQUEZ, P. et al. (2013): “An ERP study of vocal emotion pro-cessing in asymmetric Parkinson’s disease”, Social Cognitive and Affec-tive Neuroscience, 8(8), pp. 918-927.
  • GOUGH, P. M. et al. (2005): “Dissociating linguistic processes in the left inferior frontal cortex with transcranial magnetic stimulation”, Journal of Neuroscience, 25(35), pp. 8010-8016.
  • GUNTER, T. C. et al. (2000): “Syntactic gender and semantic expectancy: ERPs reveal early autonomy and late interaction”, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12(4), pp. 556-568.
  • HAMILTON, R. H. et al. (2011): “Mecha-nisms of aphasia recovery after stroke and the role of noninvasive brain stimulation”, Brain and Lan-guage, 118(1-2), pp. 40-50.
  • HARTWIGSEN, G. et al. (2010): “The right posterior inferior frontal gyrus contributes to phonological word decisions in the healthy brain: Evidence from dual-site TMS”, Neuropsychologia, 48(10), pp. 3155-3163.
  • KAAN, E. et al. (2000): “The P600 as an index of syntactic integration difficulty”, Language and Cognitive Processes, 15(2), pp. 159-201.
  • KAPOOR, A. (2017): “Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation therapy for post-stroke non-fluent aphasia: A critical review”, Topics in Stroke Re-habilitation, 24(7), pp. 547-553.
  • KUTAS, M. & FEDERMEIER, K.D. (2000): “Electrophysiology reveals semantic memory use in language compre-hension”, Trends in Cognitive Sci-ences, 4 (12), pp. 463-470.
  • KUTAS, M. & HILLYARD, S.A. (1984): “Brain potential during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic associa-tion”, Nature, 307, pp. 161-163.
  • KUTAS, M. & HILLYARD, S.A. (1980): “Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity”, Science, 207 (4427), pp. 203-205.
  • LAI, V. T. et al. (2009): “Comprehending conventional and novel metaphors: an ERP study”, Brain Research, 1284, pp. 145-155.
  • LANG, N. et al. (2004): “Effects of transcrani-al direct current stimulation over the human motor cortex on corticospi-nal and transcallosal excitability”, Experimental Brain Research, 156(4), pp. 439–443.
  • MEINZER, M. et al. (2013): “Anodal tran-scranial direct current stimulation temporarily reverses age-associated cognitive decline and functional brain activity changes”, Journal of Neuroscience, 33(30), pp. 12470-12478.
  • MENDOZA, J. A. et al. (2016): “Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in aphasia and communication im-pairment in post-stroke: systematic review of literature”, Journal of Neu-rology & Translational Neuroscience, 4, pp. 2333–7087.
  • MONTI, A. et al. (2008): “Improved naming after transcranial direct current stimulation in aphasia”, Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychia-try, 79(4), pp. 451-453.
  • MORGAN-SHORT, K. (2014): “Electrophysi-ological approaches to understand-ing second language acquisition: A field reaching its potential”, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 34, pp. 15-36.
  • NÄÄTÄNEN, R. (2003): “Mismatch negativi-ty: clinical research and possible ap-plication”, International Journal of Psychophysiology, 48(2), pp. 179-188.
  • NEVILLE, H. J. et al. (1991): “Syntactically based sentence processing classes: evidence from event-related brain po-tentials”, Journal of Cognitive Neuro-science, 3(2), pp. 151-165.
  • NEVLER, N. & ASH, E. L. (2015): “TMS as a Tool for Examining Cognitive Processing”, Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports, 15(8), p. 52.
  • NIEDERMEYER, E. & LOPES DA SILVA, F. (1999): Electroencephalography: Basic principles, clinical applications and related fields, Philadelphia: Lip-pincott Williams & Wilkins.
  • NITSCHE, M. A. & PAULUS, W. (2000): “Excitability changes induced in the human motor cortex by weak tran-scranial direct current stimulation”, The Journal of physiology, 527(3), pp. 633.
  • OSTERHOUT, L. et al. (1994): “Brain poten-tials elicited by garden-path sentenc-es: Evidence of the application of verb information during parsing”, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learn-ing, Memory and Cognition, 20(4), pp. 786-803.
  • PARISE, E. et al. (2010): “Did You Call Me? 5-Month-Old infants own name guides their attention”, PLoS One, 5(12), pp. e14208.
  • PASCUAL-LEONE, A. et al. (2000): “Tran-scranial magnetic stimulation in cognitive neuroscience-virtual lesion, chronometry, and functional con-nectivity”, Current Opinion in Neuro-biology, 10(2), pp. 232-237.
  • PICTON, T. W. & HILLYARD, S. A. (1988): “Endogenous event-related poten-tials”, PICTON, T. W. (ed.): Handbook of electroencephalography and clini-cal neurophysiology (Vol 3). Human event-related potentials, Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 361-425.
  • PIZZAGALLI, D. A. (2007): “Electroenceph-alography and high-density electro-physiological source localization”, Cacioppo, J. T., Tass-Inary, L. G. & Berntson, G. G. (eds.): Handbook of psychophysiology, Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press, pp. 56-84.
  • POLICH, J. & HERBST, K. L. (2000): “P300 as a clinical assay: rationale, evalua-tion, and findings”, International Journal of Psychophysiology, 38(1), pp. 3-19.
  • REIS, J. et al. (2009): “Noninvasive cortical stimulation enhances motor skill ac-quisition over multiple days through an effect on consolidation”, Proceed-ings of the National Academy of Sci-ences, 106(5), pp. 1590-1595.
  • RODRÍGUEZ-GÓMEZ, P. et al. (2018): “When logical conclusions go against beliefs: an ERP study”, Lan-guage, Cognition and Neuroscience, 33(6), pp. 687-697.
  • ROSS, L. A. et al. (2011): “Improved Proper Name Recall in Aging after Electrical Stimulation of the Anterior Temporal Lobes”, Frontiers in Aging Neurosci-ence, 3, pp. 16.
  • SCHLAUG, G. et al. (2011): “The use of non-invasive brain stimulation tech-niques to facilitate recovery from post-stroke aphasia”, Neuropsychol-ogy Review, 21(3), pp. 288–301.
  • SIEBNER, H. R. et al. (2009): “How does transcranial magnetic stimulation modify neuronal activity in the brain? Implications for studies of cognition”, Cortex, 45(9), pp. 1035-1042.
  • THIEL, A. et al. (2013): “Effects of noninva-sive brain stimulation on language networks and recovery in early post-stroke aphasia”, Stroke, 44(8), pp. 2240-2246.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet