Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
Acta Psychologica
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/actpsy
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 22 July 2008
Received in revised form 14 June 2009
Accepted 22 June 2009
Available online 19 August 2009
PsycINFO classication:
2300
2340
Keywords:
Imagery
Vividness
Sensory-modality
Representational format
Simulation
a b s t r a c t
In the present fMRI study the issue of the specic cortices activation during imagery generation in different sensory modalities is addressed. In particular, we tested whether the vividness variability of imagery
was reected in the BOLD signal within specic sensory cortices. Subjects were asked to generate a mental image for each auditory presented sentence. Each imagery modality was contrasted with an abstract
sentence condition. In addition, subjects were asked to ll the Italian version of the Questionnaire Upon
Mental Imagery (QMI) prior to each neuroimaging session. In general, greater involvement of sensory
specic cortices in high-vivid versus low-vivid subjects was found for visual (occipital), gustatory (anterior insula), kinaesthetic (pre-motor), and tactile and for somatic (post-central parietal) imagery modalities. These results support the hypothesis that vividness is related to image format: high-vivid subjects
would create more analogical representations relying on the same specic neural substrates active during
perception with respect to low-vivid subjects. Results are also discussed according to the simulation
perspective.
2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Mental imagery is considered to be an important component of
conscious experience (Paivio, 1969), although it is held to usually
occur with a lower intensity when compared to real perception
(Fallgatter, Mueller, & Strik, 1997), since it is generated when perceptual information is retrieved from memory, and people are seeing with their minds eye (Kosslyn, 1994; Marks, 1973), or
hearing with their minds ear (Halpern, 1988; Pitt & Crowder,
1992). In recent years, additional experimental evidence demonstrated that people are able to generate mental images also in tactile (Yoo, Freeman, McCarthy, & Jolesz, 2003), kinaesthetic
(Jeannerod, 1995), olfactory (Djordjevic, Zatorre, Petrides, &
Jones-Gotman, 2004; Elmes, 1998), and gustatory (Kikuchi, Kubota,
Nisijima, Washiya, & Kato, 2005) modalities.
Although many researchers argue that mental images in different sensory modalities preserve key elements of perceptual stimuli
* Corresponding author. Address: Department of Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, and ECONA, Italy. Tel.: +39 06 49917609; fax: +39 06 4462449.
E-mail address: marta.olivetti@uniroma1.it (M. Olivetti Belardinelli).
0001-6918/$ - see front matter 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2009.06.009
(Algom & Cain, 1991; Carrasco & Ridout, 1993; Decety & Michel,
1989; Halpern, 1988; Intons-Peterson, 1992; Kosslyn, 1980; Kosslyn, Ball, & Reiser, 1978; Parsons, 1994; Shepard & Metzler, 1971),
others state that these representations rely on abstract symbols of
the sort used in language (Anderson & Bower, 1973; Pylyshyn,
1973, 1979, 1981, 2002). This debate leads to the issue whether
mental imagery and perception share the same mechanisms. The
advent of neuroimaging techniques allowed researchers to shed
light on the issues of modality-specicity and imagery format
(Farah, 2000), addressing at least two different questions: (a) Is
there an anatomical separation between the cortical areas serving
imagery and those serving perception? (b) Are the areas used for
imagery a subset of those engaged in perception?
Contrasting results have been provided so far. On one hand,
some studies did not report the activation of early sensory areas
during imagery tasks (Bunzeck, Wuestenberg, Lutz, Heinze, &
Jancke, 2005; DEsposito et al., 1997; Ishai, Ungerleider, & Haxby,
2000a; Jahn et al., 2004; Mellet, Tzourio, Denis, & Mazoyer, 1998;
Mellet et al., 2000). On the other hand, other studies found that
perception and imagery share neural networks involving early sensory areas during visual (Amedi, Malach, & Pascual-Leone, 2005;
191
(e.g., the action of writing); another one related to internal proprioceptive sensations: Somatic (e.g., the sensation of fatigue);
and the last one related to Abstract concepts (e.g., racial prejudice).
The experimental sentences were in part derived from a previous
study (Olivetti Belardinelli et al., 2004a, 2004b) and in part newly
constructed on the basis of the same criterion used there (for an
English version of the complete list of sentences, see Appendix A).
Category distinctiveness of the new sets of experimental sentences was tested. Thirty one subjects (different from those who
participated in the fMRI study) lled in a questionnaire and rated
the sentences along two dimensions: the dominant imagery
modality (multiple choice, including also the abstract option)
and the level of vividness (7-point Likert scale). Participants responses signicantly matched the item classication (p < 0.001),
assigning every item to the correct category; moreover modalityspecic items rated as more vivid than abstract items (modalityspecic items: mean 5.15, SD 1.48; abstract items: mean 2.13, SD
1.76; t = 14.74, p = 0.000). The ANOVA on mean vividness scores
contrasting category (eight levels seven imagery modality plus
abstract condition) and classication (two levels matching and
no-matching)
revealed
a
main
effect
for
category
(F[1,30] = 108,2411, p < 0.001), a main effect for classication
(F[7,210] = 21,5074, p < 0.001) and a signicant interaction between them (F[7,210] = 5,7524, p < 0.001). The result indicates that
coherently classied items were judged more vivid than nonmatching items for all categories except for abstract items; moreover within the coherently classied group only the abstract items
differed signicantly in vividness scores from all the other categories (Tukey p < 0.001).
The selected sentences were rst digitally recorded and then
post-processed. The gender connotation of the speakers voice
was concealed using a sound-editing software, in order to reduce
the BOLD activation due to the recognition of the speakers gender
(Imaizumi et al., 2004). A further pre-experimental test, with ten
women and ten men, ascertained that each subject attributed the
speakers voice to a person of her/his own sex.
In the fMRI session, the auditory stimuli were delivered through
a pneumatic headset, designed to minimize interference from the
scanner noise. Sound sampling rate was 22,000 Hz with 16-bit resolution. Stimuli were presented in stereo, at a sound pressure level
(SPL) of 85 dB. Despite the high-frequency cut-off of the pneumatic
device (estimated around 4 kHz), subjects reported that they were
able to clearly hear and understand the meaning of the sentences.
2.3. Procedure
Prior to the scanning session, participants were asked to complete the Italian versions of the Edinburgh Handedness Inventory
(Oldeld, 1971) to assess their handedness, and the Questionnaire
of Mental Imagery (Sacco & Reda, 1998) to assess their vividness in
mental imagery generation in different sensory modalities. The
subsequent fMRI session lasted for approximately 40 min, during
which both functional and anatomical data were acquired. The paradigm was a classic block paradigm, divided in three runs. Each run
consisted of eight blocks (one of imagery in each of the seven sensory modalities plus one abstract block) lasting 28 s and intermixed with rest periods of 20 s. Therefore each run lasted
7 min. During rest periods, subjects were instructed to maintain
xation on a black cross presented at the centre of a white screen.
In each block, a cycle of four auditory sentences belonging to one
modality at a time was presented. Each cycle consisted of one sentence, lasting 2.5 s, followed by 4.5 s for mental images generation.
Subjects were instructed to listen to each sentence, create a mental
image of its content and maintain that image until the next sentence was delivered. For the whole fMRI session subjects were
explicitly instructed not to move at all, in order to avoid artefacts.
192
nally images were smoothed with a 12 mm full-width-at-halfmaximum (FWHM) isotropic Gaussian kernel to increase the signal-to-noise-ratio and allow a group analysis.
3.2. Statistical analysis on vividness scores
Vividness ratings obtained using the Italian version of the
Questionnaire of Mental Imagery (QMI) (Sacco & Reda, 1998) were
analysed averaging the scores that subjects attributed to respective
items for each imagery modality. Therefore, each subject got seven
vividness imagery scores, (Table 1-A). In order to split between
high and low-vivid subjects a k-means overall analysis was
performed on these scores, resulting in two groups with their
respective averages in each imagery modality (Table 1-B). Finally,
considering the Euclidean distances, a high-vivid group (four
subjects) and a low-vivid group (ve subjects) were formed
(Table 1-C).
Table 1
(A) Vividness scores obtained on the Vividness Imagery Questionnaire (QMI Italian Version): low scores indicate high-vividness ratings; high scores indicate low-vividness
ratings. (B) Average of each group after K-means analysis, and relative t-test: group 1, low-vividness; group 2, high-vividness. (C) Group members and Euclidean distance from
each respective group.
A
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
Visual
Auditory
Tactile
Olfactory
Gustatory
Kinaesthetic
Somatic
1.4
1.8
2.4
2.4
1.6
1.6
1.2
2
2.4
3
2
1.4
1.4
1.2
1
2
1.8
2
2
1.6
1.2
2.4
1.6
2.4
1.2
1.4
2
2.2
1.8
1.2
1.6
3
1.8
1.2
2.8
2.2
2
1.4
1.2
1.8
2.2
1.2
1.6
1.4
2.2
2.6
2
1.6
3
2.6
1.4
1.4
2.6
3.4
2
1.6
1.2
2.8
2
2
1.4
2.2
2.4
B
Group 1
Group 2
Visual
Auditory
Tactile
Olfactory
Gustatory
Kinaesthetic
Proprioceptive
1.960000
1.880000
1.880000
2.360000
1.920000
2.840000
2.280000
1.750000
1.600000
1.600000
1.500000
1.350000
1.600000
1.550000
t-Test
0.000657145
C
High-vivid subjects
S2
0.244219
S3
0.35
S6
0.443605
S7
0.345895
Low-vivid subjects
S1
0.500057
S4
0.475455
S5
0.430017
S8
0.330886
S9
0.305754
193
Anatomical area
BA
Coordinates
Heschl Gyrus
37
17
(18/19)
(41/42)
PiriformOrbitoFrontal Cortex
Anterior Insula
Post-Central Gyrus
Pre-Central Gyrus
11
13
(1/2/3)
4
6
calculated against the rest condition, resulting in a series of statistical parametric maps (SPMs). The contrast images calculated for
each voxel at the single-subject level were then entered into the
group random-effect analysis.
In the group analysis, the different conditions, estimated at the
single-subject level, were contrasted as t statistics (random-effect)
comparing each imagery modality with the abstract condition.
Activated regions were identied as signicant only if they reached
a height threshold of p < 0.05, corrected (FDR) for multiple comparisons at voxel-level, with a cluster size equal or exceeding 10 contiguous activated voxels (except for post-central activation in the
somatic modality in the two-sample t-test analysis). MNI coordinates of the local maxima were then transformed into Talairach
coordinates (Talairach & Tournoux, 1988) using the MNI2Tal provided by M. Brett (http://www.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/imaging/common/mnispace.shtml) and activated areas were labelled
according to the Talairach Daemon Database (http://ric.uthscsa.e-
Y
45
2
34
44
40
27
44
57
18
32
Z
53
88
86
10
20
6
10
27
30
7
6
12
12
8
8
11
2
38
60
50
4. Results
4.1. Relevant activation for the whole sample
The one sample t-test analysis comparing each imagery modality versus the abstract condition was performed to explore what
process imagery modalities have in common once critical components involved both in imagery and in the abstract condition are
subtracted (e.g., task initiation and maintenance, attention, and
working memory). In general, the activation of the left fusiform
Table 3
Stereotaxic coordinates (Talairach & Tournoux, 1988), anatomical locations, and T scores of (local) peak activations for the comparison Imagery Modality > Abstract. The X sign
indicates Small Volume Correction applying.
Imagery modality
Antomical area
BA
Coordinates
X
Cluster
Y
SVC
p (cor)
Visual
L Fusform Gyrus
L Fusform Gyrus
37
37
48
40
64
58
13
6
0.035
113
4.74
5.01
Auditory
L Fusiform Gyrus
L Middle Temporal Gyrus
L Caudate Tail
37
37
45
55
36
58
58
35
7
1
2
0.049
14
3.52
3.52
4.54
Tactile
22
37
44
40
36
27
47
39
2
8
2
0.032
0.032
14
14
2.60
5.27
2.70
L
L
L
L
L
L
7
7
7
30
37
16
20
16
16
48
32
71
64
60
39
64
42
50
40
49
7
11
7
0.609
85
0.039
0.039
16
16
4.43
2.93
2.89
3.44
5.04
3.41
Olfactory
Precuneus
Precuneus
Precuneus
Parahippocampal Gyrus
Fusform Gyrus
Hippocampus
Gustatory
L Fusform Gyrus
L Caudate Tail
37
51
36
59
27
10
3
0.049
10
4.38
5.25
Kinaesthetic
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
2
5
6
6
20
37
40
24
36
20
16
32
24
44
24
36
44
17
13
36
40
40
56
66
62
56
47
15
15
57
31
0.339
64
0.009
43
0.027
0.042
0.339
0.042
22
15
64
15
4.09
4.12
9.31
5.07
3.82
3.46
4.42
5.02
19
19
36
37
37
40
40
28
51
40
75
79
32
63
47
13
17
15
14
14
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.001
0.000
89
53
89
53
89
9.40
7.00
5.79
9.09
7.56
Somatic
Post-Central Gyrus
Paracentral Gyrus
Middle Frontal Gyrus
Medial Frontal Gyrus
Fusform Gyrus
Fusform Gyrus
Inferior Parietal Lobule
Cerebellum
R Fusiform Gyrus
L Fusform Gyrus
R Limbic Parahippocampal Gyrus
L Fusform Gyrus
R Fusiform Gyrus
X
X
X
X
X
194
gyrus (BA37) was found for all the imagery modalities. The somatic
imagery yielded also the activation of the right fusiform gyrus
(BA37) and of the bilateral occipital fusiform gyrus (BA19),
whereas, the kinaesthetic imagery resulted in the activation of
the left fusiform gyrus (BA20). Activations are listed in Table 3
and shown in Fig. 1.
4.2. Modality-specic activation
The two-sample t-test analysis comparing high-vivid versus
low-vivid subjects, within each imagery modality contrasted with
the abstract condition, showed signicantly greater activations in
sensory specic areas for high-vivid compared to low-vivid subjects. Specically, we observed greater activity for the high-vivid
subjects in: the left inferior occipital gyrus (BA17/18) for visual
imagery; the left anterior insula (BA13) for gustatory imagery;
the right post-central gyrus (BA2) for tactile and somatic imagery;
and the left pre-central gyrus (BA4) for kinaesthetic imagery. Activations are listed in Table 4 and presented in Fig. 2.
In order to clarify the differences between the activation patterns of high- and low-vivid subjects, a ROI analysis (implemented
as SVC) was performed in relevant sensory specic areas. As shown
in Fig. 3, activity in these areas was enhanced in high-vivid subjects
and deactivated in low-vivid subjects. This was observed for all
sensory modalities we tested. In general, the analysis showed signicant activities in each ROI only during the associated sensory
modality (i.e. visual cortex ROI showed activity during visual imagery only).
Fig. 1. Activation of the left Fusiform gyrus for the comparison Imagery Modality > Abstract.
195
Table 4
Stereotaxic coordinates (Talairach & Tournoux, 1988), anatomical locations, and T scores of (local) peak activations for the comparison Imagery Modality > Abstract in high-vivid
with respect to low-vivid subjects. The X sign indicates Small Volume Correction applying.
Imagery modality
Antomical area
BA
Coordinates
X
Cluster
Y
p (cor)
SVC
K
Visual
17
18
16
32
90
82
8
4
0.029
0.021
21
27
4.53
5.52
X
X
Auditory
10
10
10
42
42
44
28
36
67
56
47
63
59
19
16
11
11
11
10
14
0.940
90
0.194
0.145
23
47
4.83
3.76
3.62
5.80
4.86
X
X
Tactile
R Post-Central Gysrus
R Superior Frontal Gyrus
R Inferior Parietal Lobue
L Cerebellum (Anterior Lobe)
2
10
40
55
28
48
16
25
47
40
44
52
16
53
23
0.038
0.901
0.909
0.367
20
33
32
86
4.34
5.78
4.34
5.89
Olfactory
6
10
10
13
37
40
48
32
32
40
48
48
14
50
40
11
64
40
45
7
16
6
11
53
0.035
0.288
0.288
0.075
0.039
0.975
19
536
26
7
16
148
5.07
5.48
3.60
3.10
5.47
4.34
L
L
L
L
10
13
38
42
44
36
32
56
47
16
3
16
11
5
13
14
0.948
0.021
0.936
0.145
90
28
95
47
4.83
3.82
2.95
4.86
L Post-Central Gyrus
L Pre-Central Gyrus
L Cerebellum (Anterior Lobe)
R Cerebellum (Anterior Lobe)
3
4
32
32
12
16
25
21
41
44
43
52
32
27
0.017
0.017
0.000
0.000
14
14
236
236
6.39
6.39
9.30
12.34
R Post-Central Gyrus
R Superior Parietal Lobule
R Superior Parietal Lobule
2
7
7
51
40
28
28
67
60
57
49
50
0.047
3.54
3.86
3.04
Gustatory
Kinaesthetic
Somatic
X
X
X
X
X
Fig. 2. Activation of sensory specic cortices for each imagery modality contrasted with abstract condition in high-vivid subjects with respect to low-vivid subjects.
196
Fig. 3. Histograms of contrast estimates and 90% Condential Interval for each ROI contrasting high- versus low-vividness for each imagery modality. For visual, auditory
modalities, the contrasts are shown in two different areas: left BA 17 and left BA 18 for visual imagery.
on the possible inuence of vividness variability on cortical activity. In this study we tested whether the fMRI BOLD signal was
modulated in sensory cortices according to the individual variability in vividness in all imagery modalities, using a set of sentences
similar to the one originally used by Olivetti Belardinelli et al.
(2004a, 2004b).
5.1. Relevant activations to all subjects (high- and low-vivid)
We compared each imagery modality with the abstract condition in the whole sample in order to better investigate the processes underlying the imagery operations, excluding attentional,
conceptual and working memory processes. The left fusiform gyrus
(BA37) was found active for all imagery modalities. In general, this
area has been related to semantic retrieval during a property verication task when associated false trials were present and in absence of explicit mental imagery instructions (Kan, Barsalou,
Solomon, Minor, & Thompson-Schill, 2003). Moreover, it has been
related to visual mental imagery (DEsposito et al., 1997), object
recognition (Ishai, Ungerleider, Martin, & Haxby, 2000b), and retrieval of object information (Price, Noppeney, & Phillips, 2003).
Nevertheless, since we used verbal cues to elicit images, the left
fusiform activation may also reect a visual semantic retrieval
(Thompson-Schill, Aguirre, DEsposito, & Farah, 1999), which gives
rise to multi-modal mental representation (e.g., visuo-olfactory, visuo-gustatory, etc., as shown in Olivetti Belardinelli et al., 2004a),
197
Table 5
Stereotaxic coordinates (Talairach & Tournoux, 1988), anatomical locations, and T scores of (local) peak activations for the comparison Imagery Modality > Abstract regressed
onto the vividness ratings. The X sign indicates Small Volume Correction applying.
Imagery modality
Antomical area
BA
Coordinates
X
Visual
Cluster
Y
p (cor)
SVC
K
6
6
6
9
10
10
18
18
19
19
24
30
31
32
40
40
40
44
28
16
24
24
16
36
48
24
4
8
16
8
40
40
6
14
2
52
44
48
82
86
74
82
34
50
53
43
41
45
46
45
42
20
16
21
9
4
6
17
20
16
26
12
30
38
0.042
0.001
0.000
0.032
0.000
0.032
0.000
0.042
0.000
0.007
0.000
52
107
125
55
125
55
401
52
401
19
126
0.032
0.000
55
401
10
13
19
23
39
42
44
47
36
40
28
4
45
67
51
51
51
16
74
30
68
19
1
39
3
13
1
20
31
10
18
2
0.77
102
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.078
0.131
0.085
1438
1438
1438
35
18
32
5.05
3.02
10.06
5.7
11.3
2
4.35
2.34
Tactile
R Post-Central Gyrus
R Anterior Insula
R Post-Central Gyrus
L Lingual Gyrus
R Superior Temporal Gyrus
L Post-Central Gyrus
R Cerebellum (Anterior Lobe)
2
13
5
18
38
43
48
36
32
12
51
51
28
28
26
44
82
19
18
52
52
15
57
9
14
19
27
0.005
0.001
0.005
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.035
27
146
27
669
146
387
74
7.4
4.02
5.99
6.65
7.02
12.3
4.35
Olfactory
10
10
10
45
28
40
50
55
52
11
20
20
0.996
93
3.43
3.38
3.37
Gustatory
L Anterior Insula
L Anterior Insula
L Post-Central Gyrus
13
13
43
40
36
59
1
7
6
14
14
19
0.05
0.05
0.05
16
16
16
4.27
4.21
4.4
Kinaesthetic
6
6
6
6
18
40
40
4
12
32
40
24
55
59
17
20
6
2
84
29
30
52
56
33
41
23
38
29
0.049
22
0.05
12
0.95
90
6.45
5.8
4.57
3.1
3.35
4.19
3.78
R Post-Central Gyrus
L Medial Frontal Gyrus
R Medial Frontal Gyrus
L Superior Temporal Gyrus
L Inferior Frontal Gyrus
3
6
6
22
44
24
4
12
63
59
28
9
24
50
16
57
47
56
12
13
0.002
545
0.004
494
Auditory
Somatic
4.03
7.13
6.06
4.92
4.9
4.77
6.95
7.5
4.74
5.05
9.27
4.27
4.36
4.89
8.36
8.28
X
X
X
6.5
7.56
7.21
5.25
5.25
to signal decreases, with a greater effect in Heschls gyrus. Regarding olfactory imagery, the lack of an olfactory activation leads to
the conclusion that the vividness scores related to olfactory imagery do not predict olfactory specic-modality activations, probably
depending on the difculty in generating vivid images of smells
(Lawless, 1997), especially when they are verbally cued (Herz,
2000).
With respect to conditions revealing signicant activity,
although correlation and group analyses do not completely overlap, both analyses revealed that modality-specic activations are
modulated by vividness level for visual, tactile, gustatory, kinaesthetic and somatic mental imageries.
In particular, for visual imagery, the activation of BA17 (group
analysis) or BA18 (both group and correlation analysis) was found.
Several studies provided no evidence of these activations for
198
199
Appendix A (continued)
6. Conclusions
According to our hypothesis, the level of imagery vividness in
different sensory modalities may be related to differences of BOLD
activity in modality-specic cortices. In other words, some of the
neural processes underlying modality-specic perception may also
be used in imagery when people are able to evoke vivid images. In
particular we found modality-specic activation for visual, tactile,
gustatory, kinaesthetic and somatic imagery modalities when subjects generated and maintained mental images triggered by auditory sentences. These results are consistent with the view that
the ability of generating vivid images may have an inuence on
the process of image formation on both the format and the activation levels, high-vivid subjects creating more analogical images
and sharing very similar neural mechanisms with perception as
compared to low-vivid subjects. In the future, in order to better
specify this difference we are planning to compare the fMRI results
of high- and low-vivid subjects with their ratings, after the fMRI
session, of the perceived vividness of the image generated by each
stimuli sentence.
Appendix A
Visual
sentences
Auditory
sentences
Tactile sentences
Gustatory
sentences
To see a bulb
To hear a
whistle
To hear a
rumble
To hear a
tinkling
To hear a snap
To touch something
grainy
To touch something
velvety
To touch something
sharp
To touch something
sticky
To touch something
liquid
To touch something
hard
To touch something
smooth
To touch something
gelatinous
To touch something
soft
To touch something
rough
To touch something
gummy
To touch something
greasy
To see a
bucket
To see a coin
To see a
cloud
To see a book
To hear grating
To see a glass
To hear a shot
To see a box
To hear ringing
To see a hat
To hear
thunder
To hear a
chime
To hear
buzzing
To hear a
rustle
To hear an
uproar
To see a
candle
To see a
pencil
To see a
house
To see a tree
Olfactory
sentences
Kinaesthetic
sentences
Somatic sentences
Abstract
sentences
The stale
smell
The smell of
sewage
The burning
smell
The smell of
alcohol
The smell of
gas
The smell of
paint
The smell of
leather
The action
writing
The action
jumping
The action
painting
The action
walking
The action
kicking
The action
pulling
The action
lifting
The sensation
shivers
The sensation
excitement
The sensation
irritation
The sensation
pain
The sensation
fatigue
The sensation
creeps
The sensation
exertion
of
The legal
technicality
The power of
reason
Syntactical
correctness
The spiritual
power
The cardinal sin
of the
Racial prejudice
of
Innate goodness
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
Olfactory
sentences
Kinaesthetic
sentences
Somatic sentences
Abstract
sentences
The smell of
lavender
The clean smell
The action of
pushing
The action of
throwing
The action of
running
The action of
swimming
The action of
dancing
The sensation of
cramps
The sensation of cold
Formal logic
The smell of
bread
The fried smell
The moldy smell
The sensation of
nausea
The sensation of
drunkenness
The sensation of
freshness
The lack of
honesty
Universal
domination
Classical
physics
Judging on
intention
References
Algom, D., & Cain, W. S. (1991). Remembered odors and mental mixtures: Tapping
reservoirs of olfactory knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human
Perception and Performance, 17, 11041119.
Amedi, A., Malach, R., & Pascual-Leone, A. (2005). Negative BOLD differentiates
visual imagery and perception. Neuron, 5, 859872.
Anderson, J. R., & Bower, G. H. (1973). Human associative memory. New York:
Winston.
Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioural and Brain Sciences,
22, 577660.
Barsalou, L. W. (2008a). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59,
617645.
Barsalou, L. W. (2008b). Grounding symbolic operations in the brains modal
systems. In G. R. Semin & E. R. Smith (Eds.), Embodied grounding: Social,
cognitive, affective, and neuroscientic approaches (pp. 942). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Barsalou, L-W., Santos, A., Simmons, W.K., & Wilson, C.D. (2008). Language and
simulation in conceptual processing. In M. De Vega, A.M. Glenberg, & A.C.
Graesser, A. (Eds.), Symbols, embodiment and meaning (pp. 245283). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Bensa, M., Sobel, N., & Khan, R. M. (2007). Hedonic-specic activity in piriform
cortex during odor imagery mimics that during odor perception. Journal of
Neurophysiology, 98, 32543262.
Betts, G. H. (1909). The distribution and functions of mental imagery (Contribution to
Education, No. 26). New York: Columbia University, Teachers College.
Buckner, R. L., Raichle, M. E., Miezin, F. M., & Peterson, S. E. (1996). Functional
anatomic studies of memory retrieval for auditory words and visual pictures.
The Journal of Neuroscience, 16, 62196235.
Bunzeck, N., Wuestenberg, T., Lutz, K., Heinze, H. J., & Jancke, L. (2005). Scanning
silence: Mental imagery of complex sounds. NeuroImage, 26, 11191127.
Carrasco, M., & Ridout, J. (1993). Olfactory perception and olfactory imagery: A
multidimensional analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human
Perception and Performance, 19(2), 287301.
Cui, X., Jeter, C. B., Yang, P. D., Montague, R., & Eagleman, D. M. (2007). Vividness of
mental imagery: Individual variability can be measured objectively. Vision
Research, 47, 474478.
Decety, J., & Michel, F. (1989). Comparative analysis of actual and mental movement
times in two graphic tasks. Brain Cognition, 11(11), 8797.
Dechent, P., Merboldt, K. D., & Frahm, J. (2004). Is the human primary motor cortex
involved in motor imagery? Cognitive Brain Research, 19(2), 138144.
DEsposito, M., Detre, J. A., Aguirre, G. K., Stallcup, M., Alsop, D. C., Tippet, L. J., et al.
(1997). A functional MRI study of mental image generation. Neuropsychologia,
35, 725730.
Djordjevic, J., Zatorre, R. J., Petrides, M., Boyle, J. A., & Jones-Gotman, M. (2005).
Functional neuroimaging of odor imagery. NeuroImage, 24, 791801.
Djordjevic, J., Zatorre, R. J., Petrides, M., & Jones-Gotman, M. (2004). The minds
nose: Effects of odor and visual imagery on odor detection. Psychological Science,
15(3), 143148.
Elmes, D. G. (1998). Is there an inner nose? Chemical Senses, 23, 443445.
Fallgatter, A. J., Mueller, Th. J., & Strik, W. K. (1997). Neurophysiological correlates of
mental imagery in different sensory modalities. International Journal of
Psychophysiology, 25, 145153.
Farah, M. J. (2000). The neural basis of mental imagery. In M. S. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The
new cognitive neurosciences (2nd ed., pp. 965974). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gaab, N., Gabrieli, J. D., & Glover, G. H. (2007). Assessing the inuence of scanner
background noise on auditory processing. II. An fMRI study comparing auditory
processing in the absence and presence of recorded scanner noise using a sparse
design. Human Brain Mapping, 28(8), 721732.
Galton, F. (1880). Statistics of mental imagery. Mind, 5, 301318.
Ghaem, O., Mellet, E., Crivello, F., Tzourio, N., Mazoyer, B., Berthoz, A., et al. (1997).
Mental navigation along memorized routes activates the hippocampus,
precuneus, and insula. NeuroReport, 8(3), 739744.
Gilbert, A. N., Crouch, M., & Kemp, S. E. (1998). Olfactory and visual mental imagery.
Journal of Mental Imagery, 22, 137146.
200
Gissurarson, L. R. (1992). Reported auditory imagery and its relationship with visual
imagery. Journal of Mental Imagery, 16(34), 117122.
Goldenberg, G., Podreka, I., Steiner, M., Willmes, K., Suess, E., & Deecke, L. (1989).
Regional cerebral blood ow patterns in visual imagery. Neuropsychologia, 27,
641664.
Goldenberg, G., Steiner, M., Podreka, I., & Deecke, L. (1992). Regional cerebral blood
ow patterns related to verication of low- and high imagery sentences.
Neuropsychologia, 30(6), 581586.
Gulyas, B. (2001). Neural networks for internal reading and visual imagery of
reading: A PET study. Brain Research Bulletin, 54(3), 319328.
Halpern, A. R. (1988). Mental scanning in auditory imagery for songs. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 14, 193202.
Herz, R. S. (2000). Verbal coding in olfactory versus nonolfactory cognition. Memory
and Cognition, 28(6), 957964.
Hoshiyama, M., Gunji, A., & Kakigi, R. (2001). Hearing the sound of silence: A
magneto encephalographic study. NeuroReport, 12(6), 10971102.
Imaizumi, S., Homma, M., Ozawa, Y., Maruishi, M., & Muranaka, H. (2004). Gender
differences in emotional prosody processingan fMRI study. Psychologia, 47,
113124.
Intons-Peterson, M. J. (1992). Components of auditory imagery. In D. Reisberg (Ed.),
Auditory imagery (pp. 4571). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Isaac, A., Marks, D. F., & Russel, D. G. (1986). An Instrument for assessing Imagery of
movement: The vividness of movement Imagery Questionnaire. Journal of
Mental Imagery, 10, 2330.
Ishai, A., Ungerleider, L., & Haxby, J. V. (2000a). Distributed neural systems for the
generation of visual images. Neuron, 28(3), 979990.
Ishai, A., Ungerleider, L. G., Martin, A., & Haxby, J. V. (2000b). The representation of
objects in the human occipital and temporal cortex. Journal of Cognitive
Neuroscience, 12(2), 3551.
Ivry, R. B. (1996). The representation of temporal information in perception and
motor control. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 6(6), 851857.
Jahn, K., Deutschlander, A., Stephan, T., Strupp, M., Wiesmann, M., & Brandt, T.
(2004). Brain activation patterns during imagined stance and locomotion in
functional magnetic resonance imaging. NeuroImage, 22(4), 17221731.
Jeannerod, M. (1995). Mental imagery in motor context. Neuropsychologia, 33,
14191432.
Kan, I. P., Barsalou, L. W., Solomon, K. O., Minor, J. K., & Thompson-Schill, L. S. (2003).
The role of mental imagery in property verication task: fMRI evidence for
perceptual
representations
of
conceptual
knowledge.
Cognitive
Neuropsychology, 20, 525540.
Kavounoudias, A., Roll, J. P., Anton, J. L., Nazarian, B., Roth, M., & Roll, L. (2008).
Proprio-tactile integration for kinaesthetic perception: An fMRI study.
Neuropsychologia, 46(2), 567575.
Kikuchi, S., Kubota, F., Nisijima, K., Washiya, S., & Kato, S. (2005). Cerebral activation
focusing on strong tasting food: A functional magnetic resonance imaging
study. NeuroReport, 16(3), 281283.
Kobayashi, M., Takeda, M., Hattori, N., Fukunaga, M., Sasabe, T., Inoue, N., et al.
(2004). Functional imaging of gustatory perception and imagery: top-down
processing of gustatory signals. NeuroImage, 23, 12711282.
Kosslyn, S. M. (1980). Image and mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kosslyn, S. M. (1994). Image and brain: The resolution of the imagery debate.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kosslyn, S. M., Alpert, N. M., Thompson, W. L., Maljkovic, V., Weise, S. B., Chabris, C.
F., et al. (1993). Visual mental imagery activates topographically organized
visual cortex: PET investigations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 5, 263287.
Kosslyn, S. M., Ball, T. M., & Reiser, B. J. (1978). Visual images preserve metric spatial
information: Evidence from studies of image scanning. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 4, 4760.
Kosslyn, S. M., Pascual-Leone, A., Felician, O., Camposano, S., Keenan, J. P.,
Thompson, W. L., et al. (1999). The role of Area 17 in visual imagery:
Convergent evidence from PET and rTMS. Science, 284, 167170.
Kosslyn, S. M., Thompson, W. L., Kim, I. J., & Alpert, N. M. (1995). Topographical
representations of mental images in primary visual cortex. Nature, 378,
496498.
Lambert, S., Sampaio, E., Scheiber, C., & Mauss, Y. (2002). Neural substrates of
animal mental imagery: Calcarine sulcus and dorsal pathway involvement An
fMRI study. Brain Research, 924(2), 176183.
Lawless, H. T. (1997). Olfactory psychophysics. In G. K. Beaucahmp & L. Bartoushuk
(Eds.), Tasting and smelling (pp. 125175). San Diego: Academic Press.
Leblanc, E., Mayer, E., Zatorre, R., Tampieri, D., & Evans, A. (1995). Functional PET
scanning in the preoperative assessment of cerebral arteriovenous
malformations. Stereotactic and Functional Neurosurgery, 65(14), 6064.
Lotze, M., Montoya, P., Erb, M., Hulsmann, E., Flor, H., Klose, U., et al. (1999).
Activation of cortical and cerebellar motor areas during executed and imagined
hand movements: An fMRI study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 11,
491501.
Marks, D. F. (1973). Visual imagery differences in the recall of pictures. British
Journal of Psychology, 64, 1724.
Mellet, E., Bricogne, S., Tzourio-Mazoyer, N., Gham, O., Petit, L., Zago, L., et al.
(2000). Neural correlates of topographic mental exploration: The impact of
route versus survey perspective learning. NeuroImage, 12, 588600.
Mellet, E., Tzourio, N., Denis, M., & Mazoyer, B. (1995). A positron emission
tomography study of visual and mental spatial exploration. Journal of Cognitive
Neuroscience, 7(4), 433445.
Mellet, E., Tzourio, N., Denis, M., & Mazoyer, B. (1998). Cortical anatomy of mental
imagery of concrete nouns based on their dictionary denition. NeuroReport,
9(5), 803808.
Mellet, E., Tzourio-Mazoyer, N., Bricogne, S., Mazoyer, B., Kosslyn, S. M., & Denis, M.
(2000). Functional anatomy of high-resolution visual mental imagery. Journal of
Cognitive Neuroscience, 12, 98109.
Oldeld, R. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh
inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9(1), 97113.
Olivetti Belardinelli, M., Di Matteo, R., Del Gratta, C., De Nicola, A., Ferretti, A., &
Romani, G. L. (2004a). Communalities between visual imagery and imagery in
other modalities: An investigation by means of fMRI. In A. Carsetti (Ed.), Seeing,
thinking and knowing (pp. 203218). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Olivetti Belardinelli, M., Di Matteo, R., Del Gratta, C., De Nicola, A., Ferretti, A.,
Tartaro, A., et al. (2004b). Inter-modal sensory image generation: An fMRI
analysis. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 16(5), 729752.
Olivetti Belardinelli, M., Sestieri, C., Di Matteo, R., Delogu, F., Del Gratta, C., Ferretti,
A., et al. (2004c). Audio-visual cross modal interactions in environmental
perception: An fMRI investigation. Cognitive Processing, 5, 167174.
Paivio, A. (1969). Mental imagery in associative learning and memory. Psychological
Review, 76, 241263.
Parsons, L. M. (1994). Temporal and kinematic properties of motor behaviour
reected in mentally simulated action. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Human Perception and Performance, 20(4), 709730.
Pitt, M. A., & Crowder, R. G. (1992). The role of spectral and dynamic cues in imagery
for musical timbre. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and
Performance, 18(3), 728738.
Porro, C. A., Francescato, M. P., Cettolo, V., Diamond, M. E., Baraldi, P., Zuiani, C., et al.
(1996). Primary motor and sensory cortex activation during motor performance
and motor imagery: A functional magnetic resonance imaging study. Journal of
Neuroscience, 16(23), 76887698.
Price, C. J., Noppeney, U., & Phillips, J. (2003). How is the fusiform gyrus related to
category-specicity? Cognitive Neuropsychology, 20, 561574.
Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1973). What the minds eye tells the minds brain: A critique of
mental imagery. Psychological Bulletin, 80, 124.
Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1979). The rate of mental rotation of images: A test of a holistic
analogue hypothesis. Memory and Cognition, 7, 1928.
Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1981). The imagery debate: Analogue media versus tacit
knowledge. Psychological Review, 87, 1645.
Pylyshyn, Z. W. (2002). Mental imagery: In search of a theory. Behavioural and Brain
Science, 25, 157238.
Querleux, B., Gazano, G., Mohen-Domenech, O., Jacquin, J., Burnod, Y., Gaudion, P.,
et al. (1999). Brain activation in response to a tactile stimulation: Functional
magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) versus cognitive analysis. International
Journal of Cosmetic Science, 21(2), 107118.
Roth, M., Decety, J., Raybaudi, M., Massarelli, R., Delon-Martin, C., Segebarth, C., et al.
(1996). Possible involvement of primary motor cortex in mentally simulated
movement: A functional magnetic resonance imaging study. NeuroReport, 7(7),
12801284.
Sacco, G., & Reda, M. (1998). The Italian form of the Questionnaire Upon Mental
Imagery (QMI). Journal of Mental Imagery, 22(34), 213228.
Sheehan, P. W. (1967). A shortened form of Betts Questionnaire Upon Mental
Imagery. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 23, 386389.
Shepard, R. N., & Metzler, J. (1971). Mental rotation of three-dimensional objects.
Science, 171, 701770.
Switras, J. E. (1978). An alternate-form instrument to assess vividness and
controllability of mental imagery in seven modalities. Perceptual and Motor
Skills, 46(2), 379384.
Szameitat, A. J., Shen, S., & Sterr, A. (2007). Motor imagery of complex everyday
movements. An fMRI study. NeuroImage, 34, 702713.
Talairach, J., & Tournoux, P. (1988). Co-planar stereotaxic Atlas of the human brain.
New York: Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
Thompson-Schill, S. L., Aguirre, G. K., DEsposito, M., & Farah, M. J. (1999). A neural
basis for category and modality specicity in semantic knowledge.
Neuropsychologia, 37, 671676.
White, K., Ashton, R., & Braown, R. M. D. (1977). The measurement of imagery
vividness: Normative data and their relationship to sex, age and modality
differences. British Journal of Psychology, 68, 203211.
White, K., Ashton, R., & Law, H. (1974). Factor analyses of the shortened form of
Betts Questionnaire Upon Mental Imagery. Australian Journal of Psychology,
26(3), 183190.
Yoo, S.-S., Freeman, D. K., McCarthy, J. J., & Jolesz, F. A. (2003). Neural substrates of
tactile imagery: A functional MRI study. NeuroReport, 14(4), 581585.