Contributions to a neurophysiology of meaning: The interpretation of written messages could be an automatic stimulus-reaction mechanism before becoming conscious processing of information
Author and article information
Abstract
Background. Interpretation is the process through which humans attribute meanings to every input they grasp from their natural or social environment. Formulation and exchange of meanings through natural language are basic aspects of human behaviour and important neuroscience subjects; from long ago, they are the object of dedicated scientific research. Two main theoretical positions (cognitivism and embodied cognition) are at present confronting each other; however, available data is not conclusive and scientific knowledge of the interpretation process is still unsatisfactory. Our work proposes some contributions aimed to improve it. Methodology. Our field research involved a random sample of 102 adults. We presented them a real world-like case of written communication using unabridged message texts. We collected data (written accounts by participants about their interpretations) in controlled conditions through a specially designed questionnaire (closed and opened answers). Finally, we carried out qualitative and quantitative analyses through some fundamental statistics. Principal Findings. While readers are expected to concentrate on the text’s content, they rather report focusing on the most varied and unpredictable components: certain physical features of the message (e.g. the message’s period lengths) as well as meta-information like the position of a statement or even the lack of some content. Just about 12% of the participants' indications point directly at the text's content. Our data converge on the hypothesis that the components of a message work at first like physical stimuli, causing readers' automatic (body level) reactions independent of the conscious attribution of meaning. So, interpretation would be a (learned) stimulus-reaction mechanism, before switching to information processing, and the basis of meaning could be perceptual/analogical, before propositional/digital. We carried out a first check of our hypothesis: the employed case contained the emerging of a conflict and two versions (“H” and “S”, same content, different forms) of a reply to be sent at a crucial point. We collected the participants’ (independent) interpretations of the two versions; then, we asked them to choose which one could solve the conflict; finally, we assessed the coherence between interpretations and choice on a 4-level scale. The analysis of the coherence levels' distribution returned that, with regards to our expectations, incoherence levels are over-represented; such imbalance is totally ascribable to “H” choosers. “H” and “S” choosers show significant differences (p<<0.01) in the distributions of coherence levels, what is inconsistent with the traditional hypothesis of a linear information processing resulting in the final choice. In the end, with respect to the currently opposing theories, we found out that our hypothesis has either important convergences or at least one critical divergence, joined with the capacity to encompass they both.
Cite this as
2015. Contributions to a neurophysiology of meaning: The interpretation of written messages could be an automatic stimulus-reaction mechanism before becoming conscious processing of information. PeerJ PrePrints 3:e358v3 https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.358v3Author comment
This is version 3 of a PeerJ preprint. With respect to version 2, it contains the following main changes: - Revision of the Abstract. - Revision of statistics presentation. - Text revision, with special regards to the Discussion section. - Check and upgrade of Figures and Tables. - Revision of the Supporting Information.
Sections
Supplemental Information
Supplemental materials: Methods, supplemental Data, Figures and Tables
The Supplemental Materials file contains details, unsuitable to be presented in the manuscript, about the following subjects: Foundations of the chosen methodological approach - Technical documentation (research guidelines and protocol, the employed questionnaire and so on) - Analysis of the collected data suitability - Added materials aimed to a further check of our hypothesis.
Additional Information
Competing Interests
The authors declare they have no competing interests.
Author Contributions
Roberto Maffei conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, wrote the paper, prepared figures and/or tables, reviewed drafts of the paper, carried out the pilot sessions.
Livia S Convertini performed the experiments, analyzed the data, wrote the paper, reviewed drafts of the paper, carried out the pilot sessions; Carried out data entry; Controlled and harmonized the entered texts.
Sabrina Quatraro performed the experiments, analyzed the data, wrote the paper, reviewed drafts of the paper, carried out the pilot sessions; Carried out data entry; Controlled and harmonized the entered texts.
Stefania Ressa performed the experiments, analyzed the data, wrote the paper, reviewed drafts of the paper, carried out the pilot sessions; Carried out data entry; Controlled and harmonized the entered texts.
Annalisa Velasco performed the experiments, analyzed the data, wrote the paper, reviewed drafts of the paper, carried out the pilot sessions; Carried out data entry; Controlled and harmonized the entered texts.
Ethics
The following information was supplied relating to ethical approvals (i.e., approving body and any reference numbers):
1. Internal Ethics Committee for the Scientific Research of the Association ARPA-Firenze.
2. Even though we think our research does not touch any critical ethics subject (it is extensively explained in our Method section), we requested the Committee's approval. The Committee held a dedicated session to our research (April 2, 2012) and its approval was given through a formal decision documented by the session's official report, signed by all the Committee's members and filed in the Association's archives.
Funding
The authors declare there was no funding for this work.
