Abstract
In two experiments, we examined individual differences in metaphor processing. In Experiment 1, the subjects judged the literal truth of literal, metaphorical, and scrambled sentences. Overall, metaphors were more difficult to judge as false, in comparison with scrambled controls, suggesting that the metaphorical meaning was being processed automatically. However, there were individual differences in that high-IQ subjects showed more interference. These effects were reflected in ERP amplitude differences at the onset of N400 and after the response. In Experiment 2, the subjects completed IQ tests and a series of working memory tests and then rated and interpreted the same set of metaphors. The results showed that IQ was correlated with working memory capacity and that low-IQ subjects had similar ratings but poorer quality interpretations than did high-IQ subjects. The results were most consistent with a constraint satisfaction approach to metaphor comprehension.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Beeman, M. (1993). Semantic processing in the right hemisphere may contribute to drawing inferences from discourse.Brain & Language,44, 80–120.
Beeman, M., Friedman, R. B., Grafman, J., Perez, E., Diamond, S., & Beadle Lindsay, M. (1994). Summation priming and coarse semantic coding in the right hemisphere.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,6, 26–45.
Bihrle, A. M., Brownell, H. H., & Powelson, J. A. (1986). Comprehension of humorous and nonhumorous materials by left and right brain-damaged patients.Brain & Cognition,5, 399–411.
Blasko, D. G. (1999). Only the tip of the iceberg: Who understands what about metaphor?Journal of Pragmatics,31, 1675–1683.
Blasko, D. G., & Briihl, D. S. (1997). Reading and recall of metaphorical sentences: Effects of familiarity and context.Metaphor & Symbol,12, 261–285.
Blasko, D. G., & Connine, C. M. (1993). Effects of familiarity and aptness on metaphor processing.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,19, 295–308.
Bottini, G., Corcoran, R., Sterzi, R., Paulesu, E., Schenone, P., Scarpa, P., Frackowiak, R. S. J., & Frith, C. D. (1994). The role of the right hemisphere in the interpretation of figurative aspects of language: A positron emission tomography activation study.Brain,117, 1241–1253.
Burgess, C., & Chiarello, C. (1996). Neurocognitive mechanism underlying metaphor comprehension and other figurative language.Metaphor & Symbolic Activity,11, 67–84.
Clark, H. H. (1973). The language as fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,12, 335–359.
Cohen, J. D., MacWhinney, B., Flatt, M., & Provost, J. (1993). PsyScope: An interactive graphic system for designing and controlling experiments in the psychology laboratory using Macintosh computers.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,25, 257–271.
Coles, M. G. H., Smid, H., Scheffers, M., & Otten, L. (1995). Mental chronometry and the study of human information processing. In M. D. Rugg & M. G. H. Coles (Eds.),Electrophysiology of mind: Event-related brain potentials and cognition (pp. 86–131). New York: Oxford University Press.
Connine, C. M., Blasko, D. G., & Wang, J. (1994). Vertical similarity in spoken word recognition: Multiple lexical activation, individual differences, and the role of sentence context.Perception & Psychophysics,56, 624–636.
Coulson, S. (2001). Semantic leaps. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,19, 450–466.
Engle, R., Kane, M., & Tuholski, S. (1999). Individual differences in working memory capacity and what they tell us about controlled attention, general fluid intelligence and functions of the prefrontal cortex. In A. Miyake & P. Shah (Eds.),Models of working memory (pp. 102–134). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fabiani, M., Gratton, G., & Coles, M. (2000). Event-related brain potentials: Methods, theory and application. In J. Cacioppo, L. Tassinary, & G. Brentson (Eds.),Handbook of psychophysiology (2nd ed., pp. 53–84). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gentner, D., & Wolff, P. (1997). Alignment in the processing of metaphor.Journal of Memory & Language,37, 331–355.
Gernsbacher, M. A., & Faust, M. E. (1991). The mechanism of suppression: A component of general comprehension skill.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,17, 245–262.
Gernsbacher, M. A., & Keysar, B. (1995, November).The role of suppression in metaphor interpretation. Paper presented at the 36th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Los Angeles.
Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (1994).The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gildea, P., & Glucksberg, S. (1983). On understanding metaphor: The role of context.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,22, 577–590.
Glucksberg, S. (2001).Understanding figurative language. New York: Oxford University Press.
Glucksberg, S., Gildea, P., & Bookin, H. B. (1982). On understanding nonliteral speech: Can people ignore metaphors?Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,21, 85–98.
Glucksberg, S., & Keysar, B. (1990). Understanding metaphorical comparisons: Beyond similarity.Psychological Review,97, 3–18.
Gratton, G. (1997).PC-EXP [Computer software]. Columbia: University of Missouri.
Gratton, G., Coles, M. G. H., & Donchin, E. (1983). A new method for off-line removal of ocular artifact.Electroencephalography & Clinical Neurophysiology,55, 468–484.
Gregory, M., & Mergler, N. (1990). Metaphor comprehension: In search of literal truth, possible sense, and metaphoricity.Metaphor & Symbolic Activity,5, 151–173.
Hirst, W., LeDoux, J., & Stein, S. (1984). Constraints on the processing of indirect speech acts: Evidence from aphasiology.Brain & Language,23, 26–33.
Holcomb, P. J., & Neville, H. J. (1990). Auditory and visual semantic priming in lexical decision: A comparison using event-related brain potentials.Language & Cognitive Processes,5, 281–312.
Honeck, R. P., Welge, J., & Temple, J. G. (1998). The symmetry control in tests of the standard pragmatic models: The case of proverb comprehension.Metaphor & Symbol,134, 257–273.
Inhoff, A. W., Lima, S. D., & Carroll, P. J. (1984). Contextual effects on metaphor comprehension in reading.Memory & Cognition,12, 558–567.
Jackson, D. N. (1998).Multidimensional aptitude battery II. London, ON: Research Psychologist Press.
Jastak, S., & Wilkinson, G. S. (1984).The Wide Range Achievement Test-Revised. Wilmington, DE: Jastak Associates.
Johnson, J., & Pascual-Leone, J. (1989). Developmental levels of processing in metaphor interpretation.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,48, 1–31.
Johnson, R. (1993). On the neural generators of the P300 component of the event-related potential.Psychophysiology,30, 90–97.
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory.Psychological Review,99, 122–149.
Katz, A., & Ferretti, T. (2001). Moment-by-moment reading of proverbs in literal and nonliteral contexts.Metaphor & Symbol,16, 193–221.
Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. J. (1990).Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.
Kazmerski, V., & Friedman, D. (1998). The scalp topography of P3b in early Alzheimer’s disease.Journal of Psychophysiology,12, 127–143.
King, J., & Just, M. A. (1991). Individual differences in syntactic processing: The role of working memory.Journal of Memory & Language,30, 580–602.
Kintsch, W. (1998).Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kintsch, W. (2000). Metaphor comprehension: A computational theory.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,7, 257–266.
Kintsch, W. (2001). Predication.Cognitive Science,25, 173–202.
Kutas, M. (1997). Views on how the electrical activity the brain generates reflects the functions of different language structures.Psychophysiology,34, 383–398.
Kutas, M., Federmeier, K. D., Coulson, S., King, J. W., & Münte, T. F. (2000). Language. In J. T. Cacioppo, L. G. Tassinary, & G. G. Berntson (Eds.),Handbook of psychophysiology (2nd ed., pp. 576–601). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kutas, M., Federmeier, K. D., & Sereno, M. I. (1999). Current approaches to mapping language in electromagnetic space. In C. Brown & P. Hagoort (Eds.),The neurocognition of language (pp. 359–392). New York: Oxford University Press.
Light, L., Owens, S. A., Mahoney, P., & LaVoie, D. (1993). Comprehension of metaphors by young and older adults. In J. Cerella, J. M. Rybash, W. J. Hoyer, & M. Commons (Eds.),Adult information processing: Limits on loss (pp. 459–488). San Diego: Academic Press.
Lovrich, D., Cheng, J. C., Velting, D. M., & Kazmerski, V. (1997). Auditory ERPs during rhyme and semantic processing: Effects of reading ability in college students.Journal of Clinical & Experimental Neuropsychology,19, 313–330.
Osterhout, L. (1994). Event-related brain potentials as tools for comprehending language comprehension. In C. Clifton, Jr., L. Frazier, & K. Rayner (Eds.),Perspectives on sentence processing (pp. 15–44). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Osterhout, L., Bersick, M., & McLaughlin, J. (1997). Brain potentials reflect violations of gender stereotypes.Memory & Cognition,25, 273–285.
Osterhout, L., & Holcomb, P. (1992). Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly.Journal of Memory & Language,31, 785–806.
Pynte, J., Besson, M., Robichon, F., &Poli, J. (1996). The time course of metaphor comprehension.Brain & Language,55, 293–316.
Schneider, W., Eshman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002).E-Prime user’s guide. Pittsburgh: Psychology Software Tools.
Searle, J. (1979). Metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.),Metaphor and thought (pp. 83–111). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shah, P., & Miyake, A. (1996). The separability of working memory resources for spatial thinking and language processing: An individual differences approach.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,125, 4–27.
Stanovich, K. E., Cunningham, A. E., & West, R. F. (1981). A longitudinal study of the development of automatic recognition skills in first graders.Journal of Reading Behavior,13, 57–74.
Stelmack, R., & Houlihan, M. (1995). Event-related potentials, personality, and intelligence: Concepts, issues, and evidence. In D. Saklofske & M. Zeidner (Eds.),International handbook of personality and intelligence: Perspectives on individual differences (pp. 349–365). New York: Plenum.
Titone, D. (1998). Hemispheric differences in context sensitivity during lexical ambiguity resolution.Brain & Language,65, 361–394.
Tompkins, C. A., Bloise, C. G., Timko, M. L., & Baumgaertner, A. (1994). Working memory and inference revision in brain damaged and normally aging adults.Journal of Speech & Hearing Research,37, 896–912.
Trick, L., & Katz, A. N. (1986). The domain interaction approach to metaphor processing: Relating individual differences and metaphor characteristics.Metaphor & Symbolic Activity,1, 185–213.
Winner, E., & Gardner, H. (1977). The comprehension of metaphor in brain-damaged patients.Brain,100, 717–729.
Wolff, P., & Gentner, D. (2000). Evidence for role-neutral initial processing of metaphors.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,26, 529–541.
Woodcock, R. W. (1987).Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests-Revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This study was supported by Penn State Erie Undergraduate Student Research grants.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kazmerski, V.A., Blasko, D.G. & Dessalegn, B.G. ERP and behavioral evidence of individual differences in metaphor comprehension. Memory & Cognition 31, 673–689 (2003). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196107
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196107