Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Figure 1.
A, Stimuli varied by three factors. The first factor was composability, where two-word items that composed into short sentences (i.e., COMP items) are marked in blue and two-word items that did not compose (i.e., LIST items) are marked in gold. The second factor was language switching (Switch, No-Switch); and the third factor was orthography switching (Switch, No-Switch). All example stimuli express “icicles melt” but illustrate the varied presentations by our conditions. B, Trials were blocked by stimulus type (COMP, LIST). Although stimulus presentation was consistent across all trials, the behavioral task differed between the two block types. For each COMP trial, participants indicated whether the picture matched or did not match the preceding two-word expression; for each LIST trial, participants indicated whether the picture matched one of the two preceding words or did not match either word. Pictures were balanced across trials for whether they matched/mismatched.
- Figure 2.
Bar graphs represent average response times and average proportion of correct answers, respectively, by each condition, and error bars represent the SEM. Participants were significantly faster and more accurate completing the COMP task than the LIST task (p < 0.01). They were also significantly more accurate (p < 0.01) when the orthography did not switch in the LIST task.
- Figure 3.
Bar graphs provide mean activation values in each significant time window for each language pair, and error bars represent pooled SEs. A composition effect was observed in the left temporal pole between 117 and 199 ms (p = 0.04), which did not interact with language or orthography switching. Examining each language pair revealed a similar pattern in the second time window compared with the effect observed in the full design. Effects were also observed in the first time window in the LATL, where nouns elicited more positive activity than verbs, and in the left vmPFC, where nouns elicited more negative activity than verbs.
- Figure 4.
Bar graphs provide mean activation values in each significant time window, and error bars represent pooled SEs. While a main effect of language switching was not observed, correspondence between language and orthography switching (i.e., either both language and orthography switched or neither language nor orthography switched) elicited trending effects in the left ACC (p = 0.06) and LIFG (p = 0.06) as well as significant effects in the LATL (p = 0.02) and left vmPFC (p = 0.01).
In this issue
