How the brain listens to literature

Fig 1. Results of the localizer scans.
Results of the localizer scans: Whole-brain analysis results for the
action localizer scan in yellow and for the mentalizing localizer in blue.



How do people understand fiction?  What happens in their brains when either reading or listening to a piece of fiction?  And why do some people prefer character based works, and others action adventure?  From this study, it seems there may be a genetic basis for these choices rather than the preference being learned.  It probably explains why some writers prefer creating character based fiction and others action based.  As we're discovering, "we're born this way," to quote Lady Gaga, and free will has little to do with it.  

 This research shows that some people primarily get involved in the action, visualizing the story line as it progresses as shown by the portions of the right and left hemispheres of the brain as shown above.  For others, the reading or listening experience activates different portions of the right and left hemispheres, sections more involved with empathizing with the characters.

 This implies an organic predisposition for some people to prefer literature or film that is action driven, while others are predisposed to relate to character.

 Here is the report with a link to the original study in the attribution.
*  *  *  *  *


How the brain listens to literature

When we listen to stories, we immerse ourselves into the situations described and empathize with the feelings of the characters. Only recently has it become possible to find out how exactly this process works in the brain. Scientists have now succeeded using an fMRI scanner to measure how people listen to a literary story.

Everybody immerses themselves in stories in their own way. However, due to technological limitations, how we comprehend literature has only previously been studied at a group level without looking at individual differences. Willems and Nijhof show in this study that people focus on different aspects of the story when listening to literature.

Narratives play an important role in human life, and it is more and more acknowledged that fiction is a powerful player in human development as well as in adulthood. Despite its importance, it is largely unknown what the brain networks are that support our unique ability to move into a fiction world. While it is uncontroversial that people are moved into fiction worlds, it is unclear how readers do this.

One way in which participants engage with stories, is via simulation of the story’s content. Recent philosophical and neuroscientific evidence shows that it is important to distinguish at least two neurocognitively distinct components of simulation when considering the understanding of narratives.

  • First, sensori-motor simulation is evidenced by activation of motor and visual cortices when people comprehend language related to actions and scenery. 
  • The second component relates to our ability to understand thoughts, intentions and beliefs of others, sometimes called mentalizing. The distinction between these two components important for fiction understanding is theoretically motivated, and supported by neural findings.

In this study participants listened to excerpts (4 to 8 minutes long) from literary novels, while neural activity was measured across the whole brain by means of fMRI. We chose to use listening rather than word-by-word reading, because relatively long fragments are used and therefore listening is expected to be the most convenient option for participants in the scanner. Supposedly, this would not result in crucial differences in terms of the mental simulation they employ.

Audiobooks in the fMRI scanner
Participants listened to chapters of different audiobooks, for example Island Guests by Vonne van der Meer and Thaw by Rascha Peper. Roel Willems of the Donders Institute at Radboud University says, 'We found that there were strong individual preferences; some participants were particularly focused on understanding the intentions and feelings of the main character, while other participants were much more focused on visualizing the actions of the characters.'

Previous studies did find differences in brain activity between listening and reading (with more individual differences in activity for reading), but also several core regions shared between modalities. More importantly for the purposes of the present study, it has been shown that regions involved in mentalizing and action understanding are activated independent of presentation.

Understanding Literature

by Robin Mayhead

Click to order from
Powell's Books
People differ greatly in how they engage in fiction, but the neurocognitive mechanisms behind narrative engagement remain unclear. Here we use neuroimaging to investigate individual differences during the comprehension of literary fiction stories.

Empathizing with literature
'Most people can both empathize with feelings as well as imagine the visual surroundings and the actions of the characters,' according to Willems, 'but our fMRI results show that each subject has a preference for one over the other.' This neuroscientific study is one of the first to prove individual differences when it comes to empathizing with literature.

Words, sentences, stories
This study is also unique because Willems studies 'real' language, i.e. language used in everyday life. 'Language in the brain is often studied by providing subjects with individual words and sentences. But, of course, language is much more than that! We let our participants listen to longer stories. This makes our publication a good example of brain research studying language that is very similar to the language people actually use.'

Related stories:
Story Source:  Materials provided by Radboud University. Annabel D. Nijhof, Roel M. Willems. Simulating Fiction: Individual Differences in Literature Comprehension Revealed with fMRI. PLOS ONE, 2015

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Workout supplements: An emerging eating disorder in men?

Image
therewontbeanydoves.wordpress.com When developing a fictional character, you may not think about the character using large amounts of over-the-counter dietary supplements.  Especially a man who uses large amounts of workout supplements. While there has been widespread publicity on the dangers of the non-prescribed use of anabolic steroids, not much is said about legal, over-the-counter supplements.  Are there risks?  And if so, what are they?  There are several things the writer should consider. Supplement use is becoming an eating disorder with many men who use them to prepare for and recover from a workout. There is growing evidence of a link between muscle-building supplements and testicular cancer. There is evidence that over-the counter medications and supplements are the most common causes of drug-induced liver failure (a rare event, but still a risk.)  There is even evidence that, “certain popular herbal and dietary supplements can also cause liver damage,"
Read more

Using Artificial Intelligence to Predict Violence. . . or to Control It?

Image
Dell EMC InFocus A staple of science fiction is a future where artificial intelligence (AI) is used to control people's behavior, or, in which AI supplants the human element. I have mixed feelings about AI, its uses, and our future.  For one thing, it's questionable that the human brain can increase in size or complexity without causing the system to slow down.  The brain of a "genius" isn't larger than yours or mine, its simply organized differently.  The difference between early versions of humans and modern humans is in large part, size.  Yes, brain organization plays a role, but until the latest iteration of us, brain size was the critical factor. If we as a species have survived based on brain size, and brain size has maxed out, how do we continue to evolve intellectually?  Better organization?  Yes, but can we ever hope to create and control this type of evolutionary activity? One solution to maxed human brain size is creating an interface
Read more

Remember faces but not names? You got it wrong.

Image
Source:   Daily Excelsior So, you think you're good at remembering faces, but terrible with names? New research has revealed we are actually better at remembering names than faces The cringe-worthy experience of not being able to remember an acquaintance's name leads many of us to believe we are terrible with names. However, new research has revealed this intuition is misleading; we are actually better at remembering names than faces. With the Christmas party season fast approaching, there will be plenty of opportunity to re-live the familiar, and excruciatingly-awkward, social situation of not being able to remember an acquaintance's name. This cringe-worthy experience leads many of us to believe we are terrible at remembering names. However, new research has revealed this intuition is misleading; we are actually better at remembering names than faces. The authors of the study, from the University of York, suggest that when we castigate ourselves f
Read more

The Downside of Being 'Class Clown'

Image
Source:  Bart's Blackboard Down side of being dubbed 'class clown' Class clowns' off-task antics amuse and delight their classmates during first and second grades, making them the most sought-after playmates on the playground in early elementary school.  But by the time these mischievous boys are promoted to third grade, they plummet to the bottom of the social circle as classmates' disapproval of their behavior grows, a new study found. Perhaps most worrisome is that by third grade, playful boys may be internalizing others' negative assessments and begin viewing themselves as social failures, possibly setting them on a course for a host of poor academic and developmental outcomes, said researcher Lynn A. Barnett, an educational psychologist and professor of recreation, sport and tourism at the University of Illinois. These sudden reversals in playful boys' social fortunes from first to third grade may be classmates' mirroring of teachers
Read more

M.I.T. Research Explains How Will Rogers Observation Works

Image
Finally it appears that MIT has gotten involved in proving Will's syllogism, "There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves." Read his statement carefully.   ONE learns by reading.   A FEW who learn by observation. Then there's the rest of us. The reason for this, it turns out, is a special circuit in the brain that you or I need to have a functioning version of to actually learn by observing others.  Based on how we all behave, it is a circuit most of us must be missing.   Or perhaps it shorted out the first time we peed on an electric fence and it has yet to grow back.   *  *  *  *  * Brain circuit helps us learn by watching others Scientists pinpoint neural interactions that are necessary for observational learning Researchers have identified a brain circuit required to learn by watching others. This circuit,
Read more