本研究之特殊性在於此為第一篇以功能性磁振造影探討英語為外語學習者(English as a foreign language, EFL, learners)處理隱喻(暗喻)句與轉喻(換喻)句認知理解歷程之研究。此外，本研究進一步探討隱喻(暗喻)句與轉喻(換喻)句理解歷程與工作記憶及字彙量之認知關聯性。過去相關的實驗研究，僅專注於隱喻(暗喻)句與工作記憶之認知處理，且探討對象多為英語為母語人士。本實驗受試者為17位健康的英語為外語學習人士(5位男性，12位女性，平均年齡27.11歲，年齡標準偏差為4.56)。實驗刺激項有63項英語對話句組(每組對話句組包含一句情境句及一句目標句)。實驗設計總共有三大類實驗語句變項(直述句、隱喻句、轉喻句)，其中直述句(控制組)與轉喻句(比較組) 再各自分為系統直述句、情境直述句與系統轉喻句、情境轉喻句。
造影成像顯示，在處理情境轉喻句的理解時，字彙量較少的學習者，相同於過去研究，涉及在處理一般象徵性語言(figurative language)的前顳葉區(STG)，但不同的是活化於右腦。而字彙量較多的學習者，則是在楔葉(cuneus)有較多活化，推測他們運用工作記憶中的抑制控制功能，以更專注於關鍵意涵的理解。此外，基於前人對於小腦(cerebellum)認知功能的證據，本研究更進一步推測小腦對於象徵性語言有其關聯性。因此，本研究支持轉喻句(換喻)與工作記憶及字彙量之認知處理的關聯性。

The highlight of the current study is that it is the first investigation into analyzing metaphor and metonymy processing for English as a foreign language, EFL, learners. Substantial research has demonstrated neural evidence of left frontal network (e.g., regions of the left inferior frontal gyrus, IFG, middle and superior temporal gyri, MTG and STG) for metaphor processing. Some neuroimaging studies have also pinpointed the correlation between metaphor processing and working memory capacity for, mainly, English native speakers. Adopting event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), the present study examined not only metaphor, but also metonymy of different types (systematic and circumstantial) in contrast to the matched literal in order to characterize metaphorical and metonymic neural correlation as well as to explore their interplay with working memory capacity (WMC) and vocabulary size for English as a foreign language (EFL) learners. Seventeen EFL learners (5 males, 12 females; mean age = 27.11; SD = 4.56) participated in the fMRI experiment. Stimuli consisted of 63 English conversation sets, including one context sentence and one target sentence, created for three conditions: literal, metaphor, and metonymy. Imaging results indicated that circumstantial metonymies involve common regions for figurative language processing (STG and TPL), yet in homologue RH, with lower vocabulary learners. Cuneus was activated as higher span learners resorted to inhibitory control, filtering out irrelevant information. Moreover, in the light of its role in cognitive and behavioral–affective modulation (De Smet, Paquier, Verhoeven, Mariën, 2013), cerebellum may extend its association to figurative language processing. The degree to which bilateral strategies that individuals with larger vocabulary size or higher span resort to or not resort to (neural efficiency) is differently modulated by subtypes of metonymies. Future implication lies in that learners may require perspective-taking ability and semantic reasoning for imagery mental network.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract (Chinese) i
Abstract (English) ii
Acknowledgement iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS v
Chapter One: INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Research Background 1
1.2 Purposes of the Present Study 5
1.3 Research Hypothesis 8
1.4 Research Questions 8
1.5 Organization of the Thesis 8
Chapter Two: LITERATURE REVIEW 10
2.1. Overview 10
2.2. Working Memory (WM) and Working Memory Capacity (WMC) in the Second Language (L2) and Foreign Language (FL) Learning 10
2.2.1　 Working Memory Capacity Measurement 12
2.2.2 Individual Difference in Working Memory Capacity (ID in WMC) 18
2.2.3 Working Memory Processing in Different Hemispheres 20
2.3.3 Real-Time Metaphorical Language Processing 39
2.3.4 Real-Time Metonymic Language Processing 46
Chapter Three: METHODOLOGY 56
3.1 Overview 56
3.2 Participants 56
3.3 Experiment Tasks 57
3.3.1 Pilot Study 57
3.3.2 Formal Experiment Tasks 59
3.4 Experimental Stimuli 61
3.5 General Experimental Procedure 62
3.6.1 Behavioral Data Acquisition 67
3.6.2 Imaging Data Acquisition 67
3.6.3 Imaging Data Preprocessing 68
3.7 Data Analysis 69
3.7.1 Behavioral Data Analysis 69
3.7.2 Imaging Data Analysis 69
Chapter Four: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 72
4.1 Overview 72
4.2 Behavioral Data Results 72
4.3 fMRI Results and Discussion for Overall Analysis 74
4.3.1 Results and Discussion for Literal Processing 74
4.3.2 Results and Discussion for Metaphor and Metonymy Processing 81
4.4 fMRI Results and Discussion for Circumstantial and Systematic View Analysis 85
4.4.1 Vocabulary Effects 85
4.4.2 Working Memory Capacity Effects 91
4.4.3 General Discussion 96
Chapter Five: CONCLUSION 98
APPENDIX A 103
APPENDIX B 105
APPENDIX D 118
APPENDIX E 123
REFERENCES 127

Adams, R.B. & Janata, P. (2002). A comparison of neural circuits underlying auditory and visual object categorization. Neuroimage, 16,361–377.
Ädel, A. (2014). Metonymy in the semantic field of verbal communication: A corpus-based analysis of WORD. Journal of Pragmatics, 67, 72–88.
Altarriba, J., Bauer, L.M., Benvenuti, C. (1999). Concreteness, Context Availability, and Imageability Ratings and word Associations for Abstract, Concrete, and Emotion Words. Behavioral Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 31(4), 578–602.
Alloway, T.P., Gathercole, S.E., & Pickering, S.J. (2006). Verbal and visuo-spatial short-term and working memory in children: Are they separable? Child Development, 77, 1698–1716.
Ahrens, K., Liu, H. L., Lee, C.Y., Gong, S.P., Fang, S.Y., & Hsu, Y.Y. (2007). Functional MRI of conventional and anomalous metaphors in Mandarin Chinese. Brain Lang, 100, 163–171.
Anaki, D., Faust, M., & Kravetz, S. (1998). Cerebral hemispheric asymmetries in processing lexical metaphors. Neuropsychologia, 36,353–362.
Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. Psychology of learning and motivation, 8, 47-89.
Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working Memory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Baddeley, A. D. (2000). The episodic buffer: a new component of working memory? Trends in cognitive sciences, 4(11), 417–423.
Bambini, V. (2010). Neuropragmatics: a foreword. Ital. J. Linguist, 22, 1–20.
Bambini, V., Gentili, C., Ricciardi ,E., Bertinetto, P.M., & Pietrini, P. (2011). Decomposing metaphor processing at the cognitive and neural level through functional magnetic resonance imaging. Brain. Res Bull, 86,203–216.
Beeman, M. (1993). Semantic processing in the right hemisphere may contribute to drawing inferences from discourse. Brain Lang, 44,80–120.
Beeman, M. (1998). Coarse semantic coding and discourse comprehension. In: Beeman, M., Chiarello, C. (Eds.) Right Hemisphere Language Comprehension: Perspectives from Cognitive Neuroscience. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. pp 255–284.
Beeman, M., Friedman, R.B., Grafman, J., Perez, E., Diamond, S., & Lindsay, M.B. (1994). Summation priming and coarse semantic coding in the right hemisphere. J Cogn Neurosci, 6, 26–45.
Beeman, M., Bowden, E.M., & Gernsbacher, M.A. (2000). Right and left hemisphere cooperation for drawing predictive and coherence inferences during normal story comprehension. Brain Lang, 71, 310–336.
Binder, J.R., Desai, R.H., Graves, W.W., & Conant, L.L. Where is the semantic system? A critical review and meta-analysis of 120 functional neuroimaging studies. (2009). Cereb. Cortex, 19, 2767–2796.
Bischofshausen, S., Makoid, L. A., & Cole, J. (1989) Effects of inference requirements on comprehension and recognition of metaphors. Metaphor and Symbol, 4(4), 227–246.
Bluhm, R.L., Clark, C.R., McFarlane, A.C., Moores, K.A., Shaw, M.E., & Lanius, R.A. (2010). Default network connectivity during a working memory task. Hum Brain Mapp, 32(7), 1029–35.
Blasko, D. G., & Kazmerski, V. A. (2006). ERP correlates of individual differences in the comprehension of nonliteral language. Metaphor and Symbol, 21(4), 267-284.
Blankenship, A. (1938). Memory span: a review of the literature. Psychological Bulletin, 35(1), 1-25. doi:10.1037/h0061086.
Bottini, G., Corcoran, R., Sterzi, R., 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.
Bohrn, T.C., Altmann, U., & Jacobs, A.M. (2012). Looking at the brains behind figurative language—A quantitative meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies on metaphor, idiom, and irony processing, Neuropsychologia, 50 (11), 2669–2683.
Botez-Marquard, T., Léveillé, J., & Botez, M.I. (1994). Neuropsychological functioning in unilateral cerebellar damage. Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences, 21, 353–357.
Bopp, K. L., & Verhaeghen, P. (2005). Aging and verbal memory span: A meta-analysis. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 60B, 223– 233.
Broadway, J. M., & Engle, R. W. (2010). Validating running memory span: Measurement of working memory capacity and links with fluid intelligence. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 563–570.
Chen, Y. & Lai, H. (2013). Teaching English Idioms as Metaphors through Cognitive-Oriented Methods: A Case in an EFL Writing Class, English Language Teaching, 6 (6), 13–20.
Carretti, B., Borella, E., Cornoldi, C., & De Beni, R. (2009). Role of working memory in explaining the performance of individuals with specific reading comprehension difficulties: a meta-analysis. Learning, and Individual Differences, 19, 246–251.
Conway, A.R.A., Kane, M.J., Bunting, M.F., Hambrick, D.Z., Wilhelm, O., & Engle, R.W. (2005). Working Memory Span Tasks: A Methodological Review and User's Guide. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 769–786. (http://www.pitt.edu/~tol7/res/research/psych-tests/rspan/)
Davey, J., Thompson, H. E., Hallam, G., Karapanagiotidis, T., Murphy, C., De Caso, I., Krieger-Redwood, K., Bernhardt, B.C., Smallwood, J., & Jefferies, E. (2016). Exploring the role of the posterior middle temporal gyrus in semantic cognition: Integration of anterior temporal lobe with executive processes. Neuroimage, 137, 165–177. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.05.051.
Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior, 19(4), 450-466.
Démonet, J.S., Thierry, G., & Cardebat, D. (2005). Renewal of the neurophysiology of language: functional neuroimaging, Physiol. Rev. 85, 49–95.
De Smet, H.J., Paquier, P., Verhoeven, J., & Mariën, P. (2013). The cerebellum: Its role in language and related cognitive and affective functions. Brain and Language. 127(3), 334-342.
Den Heijer, T., Oudkerk, M., Koudstaal, P.J., Hofman, A., & Breteler, M.M. (2002). Hippocampal head size associated with verbal memory performance in nondemented elderly. Neuroimage. 17: 1365–1372.
Engle, R.W., Tuholski, S.W., Laughlin, J.E., & Conway, A.R.A. (1999). Working memory, short-term memory and general fluid intelligence: A latent variable approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128, 309–331.
Farmer, T.A., Fine, A.B., Misyak, J.B., Morten, M. & Christiansen, H. (2017). Reading span task performance, linguistic experience, and the processing of unexpected syntactic events, The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70(3), 413–433.
Forgács, B., & Pléh, C. (2014). Figures of language in cognitive science in the light of figurative language processing in the brain. Hungary: Budapest University of Technology and Economics.
Friedman, N. P., & Miyake, A. (2004). The reading span test and its predictive power for reading comprehension ability. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 136–158.
Gibbs, R. W., & O'Brien, J. E. (1990). Idioms and mental imagery: The metaphorical motivation for idiomatic meaning. Cognition, 36(1), 35–68.
Glucksberg, S., Gildea, P., & Bookin, H. B. (1982). On understanding nonliteral speech: Can people ignore metaphors? Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior, 21(1), 85–98.
Grahn, J., Parkinson, J.A., & Owen, A.M. (2009). The role of the basal ganglia in learning and memory: Neuropsychological Studies. Behavioral Brain Research, 199 (1), 55–60.

Haldane, M., Cunningham, G., Androutsos, C., & Frangou, S. (2008). Structural brain correlates of response inhibition in Bipolar Disorder I. J Psychopharmacol, 22(2),138–43.
He, K. (2017). A Theory of Creative Thinking: Construction and Verification of the Dual Circulation model. Singapore: Springer.
Health, S., McMahon, KL, Nickles, L, Angwin, A., Macdonald, AD, van Hees, S., Johnson, K, & McKinnon, E. (2012). Neural mechanisms underlying the facilitation of naming in aphasia using a semantic task: an fMRI study. BMC Neurosci, 13(1),98. doi: 10.1186/1471-2202-13-98.
Horga, G., Kaur, T., & Peterson, B. S. (2014). Annual Research Review: Current limitations and future directions in MRI studies of child- and adult-onset developmental psychopathologies. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 55(6), 659–680.
Jancke, L., & Shah, N.J. (2002). Does dichotic listening probe temporal lobe functions? Neurology. 58, 736–743.
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: individual differences in working memory. Psychological review, 99(1), 122.
Jaeggi S. M., Buschkuehl M., Shah P., Jonides J. (2014). The role of individual differences in cognitive training and transfer. Journal of Memory and Cognition, 42, 464–480.
Jung-Beeman, M., (2005). Bilateral brain processes for comprehending natural language, Trends Cogn. Sci., 9, 512–518.
Kazmerski, V. A., Blasko, D. G., & Dessalegn, B. G. (2003). ERP and behavioral evidence of individual differences in metaphor comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 31(5), 673–689.
Kutas, M., One lesson learned: frame language processing – literal and figurative – as a human brain function, (2006). Metaphor Symbol, 21, 285–325.
Küper, M., Kaschani, P., Thürling, M., Stefanescu, M. R., Burciu, R. G., Göricke, S., Maderwald, S., Ladd, M. E., Hautze, H., & Timmann, D. (2016). Cerebellar fMRI Activation Increases with Increasing Working Memory Demands. Cerebellum. 15: 322.
Lakoff, G. (1990). The Invariance Hypothesis: is abstract reason based on image-schemas? Cognitive Linguistics (includes Cognitive Linguistic Bibliography), 1(1), 39–74.
Lai, V. T., van Dam, W., Conant, L. L., Binder, J. R., & Desai, R. H. (2015). Familiarity differentially affects right hemisphere contributions to processing metaphors and literals. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, 44. http://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00044
Levorato, M. C., & Cacciari, C. (1992). Children's comprehension and production of idioms: the role of context and familiarity. Journal of Child Language, 19(2), 415–433.
Leshikar, ED, Duarte, A., & Hertzog, C. (2012). Task-selective memory effects for successfully implemented encoding strategies. PLos OONE, 7(5). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0038160.
Linck, J. A., Osthus, P., Koeth, J. T., & Bunting, M. F. (2014). Working memory and second language comprehension and production: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21(4), 861–883.
Littlemore, J. (2015). Metonymy: Hidden shortcuts in langue, thought, and communication. London: Cambridge University Press.
Luis, E. O., Arrondo, G., Vidorreta, M., Martínez, M., Loayza, F., Fernández-Seara, M. A., & Pastor, M. A. (2015). Successful Working Memory Processes and Cerebellum in an Elderly Sample: A Neuropsychological and fMRI Study. PLoS ONE, 10(7).
Marin, Blumenfield, & Kaushankaya (2007). The Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire (LEAP-Q): Assessing language profiles in bilinguals and multilinguals. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 50 (4), 940- 967.
Mashal, N, Faust, M, & Hendler, T. (2005). The role of the right hemisphere in processing nonsalient metaphorical meanings: Application of principal components analysis to fMRI data. Neuropsychologia, 43, 2084–2100.
Mashal, N., Faust, M., Hendler, T., & Jung-Beeman, M. (2007). An fMRI investigation of the neural correlates underlying the processing of novel metaphoric expressions.
Brain and Language, 100, 115–126.
Mashal N., Faust M., Hendler T., & Jung-Beeman M. (2008). Hemispheric differences in processing the literal interpretation of idioms: Converging evidence from behavioral and fMRI studies. Cortex.,44, 848–860.
Mashal, N., & Faust, M. (2008). Right hemisphere sensitivity to novel metaphoric relations: Application of the signal detection theory. Brain Lang, 104, 103–112.
Mashal, N., Faust, M., Hendler, T., & Jung-Beeman, M. (2009). An fMRI study of processing novel metaphoric sentences. Laterality. 14, 30–54.
Mashal, N. & Faust, M. (2009). Conventionalization of novel metaphors: A shift in hemispheric asymmetry. Laterality. 14, 573–589.
McDermott, K.B., Petersen, S.E., Watson, J.M., & Ojemann, J.G. (2003). A procedure for identifying regions preferentially activated by attention to semantic and phonological relations using functional magnetic resonance imaging. Neuropsychologia. 41, 293–303.
Mechelli, A., Humphreys, G.W., Mayall, K., Olson, A., & Price, C.J. (2000). Differential effects of word length and visual contrast in the fusiform and lingual gyri during reading. Proc Biol Sci, 267 (1455), 1909-1913.
Michels, L., Moazami-Goudarzi, M., Jeanmonod, D., & Sarntheina, J. (2008). EEG alpha distinguishes between cuneal and precuneal activation in working memory. NeuroImage. 40, 1296–1310.
Milham, M.P., Banich, M.T., Webb, A., Barad, V., Cohen, N.J., Wszalek, T., & Kramer, A.F. (2001). The relative involvement of anterior cingulate and prefrontal cortex in attentional control depends on nature of conflict. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res, 12, 467–473.
Mason, R.A. & Just, M.A. (2004). How the brain processes causal inferences in text: A theoretical account of generation and integration component processes utilizing both cerebral hemispheres. Psychol Sci.15,1–7.
Metcalfe, J. E., & Shimamura, A. P. (1994). Metacognition: Knowing about knowing. Massachusetts, MA: The MIT Press.
Milosky, L., Wallach, G., & Butler, K. (1994). Nonliteral language abilities. Language learning disabilities in school-age children and adolescents, 275–303.
Monetta, L., Grindrod, C. M., & Pell, M. D. (2008). Effects of working memory capacity on inference generation during story comprehension in adults with Parkinson's disease. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 21(5), 400–417.
Marvel, C. L., & Desmond, J. E. (2010). Functional Topography of the Cerebellum in Verbal Working Memory. Neuropsychology Review, 20(3), 271–279.
Na, D. G., Ryu, J. W., Byun, H. S., Choi, D. S., Lee, E. J., Chung, W. I., Cho, J.M., & Han, B. K. (2000). Functional MR Imaging of Working Memory in the Human Brain. Korean Journal of Radiology, 1(1), 19–24.
Nagel, I.E., Preuschhof, C., Li, S-C, Nyberg, L., Bäckman, L., Lindenberger, U., & Heekeren, H.R. (2011). Load modulation of BOLD response and connectivity predicts working memory performance in younger and older adults. J Cogn Neurosci. 23:2030–2045.
Olson, R.K. (1999). Reading Disability: Evidence for a Genetic Etiology. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 8, 52–55.
Prat, C. S. (2011). The brain basis of individual differences in language comprehension abilities. Language and Linguistic Compass, 5(9), 635–649.
Prat, C. S. & Just, M. A. (2011). Exploring the cortical dynamics underpinning individual differences in sentence comprehension. Cerebral Cortex, 21, 1747–1760.
Prat, C. S., Mason, R. A., & Just, M. A. (2011). Individual differences in the neural basis of causal inferencing. Brain and Language, 116, 1–13.
Prat, C. S., Mason, R. A., & Just, M. A. (2012). An fMRI Investigation of Analogical Mapping in Metaphor Comprehension: The Influence of Context and Individual Cognitive Capacities on Processing Demands. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38(2), 282–294.
Papagno, C., & Cacciari, C. (2010). The role of ambiguity in idiom comprehension: the case of a patient with a reversed concreteness effect. J. Neurolinguist, 23, 631–643.
Piñango, M. M., Zhang, M., Foster-Hanson, E., Negishi, M., Lacadie, C., & Constable, T. R. (2017). Metonymy as Referential Dependency: Psycholinguistic and Neurolinguistic Arguments for a Unified Linguistic Treatment. Cognitive Science, 1–28.
Qualls, C. D., & Harris, J. L. (2003). Age, Working Memory, Figurative Language Type, and Reading Ability Influencing Factors in African American Adults' Comprehension of Figurative Language. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 12(1), 92–102.
Rapp, A. M., Erb, M., Grodd, W., Bartels, M., & Market, K. (2011). Neural correlates of metonymy resolution, Brain and Language, 119 (3), 196–205.
Rapp A., Leube D., Erb M., Grodd W., Tilo, & Kircher T. (2004). Neural correlates of metaphor processing. Cognitive Brain Research, 20 (3), 395–402.
Rapp, A.M., Leube, D.T., Erb, M., Grodd, W., & Kircher, T. (2007). Laterality in metaphor processing: Lack of evidence from functional magnetic resonance imaging for the right hemisphere theory. Brain Lang., 100, 142–149.
Reid, G. (2012). The Routledge Companion to Dyslexia. London: Taylor & Francis.
Rebollar, B. E. (2015). A relevance-theoretic perspective on metonymy. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 173, 191–198.
Ruigrok, A. N. V., Salimi-Khorshidi, G., Lai, M.-C., Baron-Cohen, S., Lombardo, M. V., Tait, R. J., & Suckling, J. (2014). A meta-analysis of sex differences in human brain structure. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 39(100), 34–50.
Salthouse, T. A. (1990). Working memory as a processing resource in cognitive aging. Developmental review, 10(1), 101–124.
Salmon, E., Van der Linden, M., Collette, F., Delfiore, G., Maquet, P., Degueldre, C., Luxen, A., & Franck, G. (1996). Regional brain activity during working memory tasks. Brain, 119(5), 1617–1625.
Schmidt, G.L., Seger, C.A. (2009). Neural correlates of metaphor processing: The roles of figurativeness, familiarity and difficulty. Brain Cogn., 71, 375–386.
Seger, C.A. & Cincotta, C.M. (2005). The roles of caudate nucleus in human classification learning. The Journal of Neuroscience, 25(11), 2941–2951.
Silani, G., Lamm, C., Ruff, C.C., & Singer, T. (2013). Right Supramarginal Gyrus Is Crucial to Overcome Emotional Egocentricity Bias in Social Judgments. Journal of Neuroscience, 33 (39),15466. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1488-13.2013.
Stringaris, A. K., Medford, N. C., Giampetro, V., Brammer, M. J., & David, A. S. (2007). Deriving meaning: Distinct mechanisms for metaphoric, literal, and non-meaningful sentences. Brain and Language, 100, 150–162.
Sugiura, M., Shah, N. J., Zilles, K., & Fink, G.R. (2005). Cortical representations of personally familiar objects and places: functional organization of the human posterior cingulate cortex. J Cogn Neurosci., 17, 183–198.
Tourangeau, R., & Sternberg, R. J. (1981). Aptness in metaphor. Cognitive psychology, 13(1), 27–55.
Tzou, Y-Z., Eslami, Z. R., Chen, H-C., & Vaid, J. (2011). Effect of language proficiency and degree of formal training in simultaneous interpreting on working memory and interpreting performance: Evidence from Mandarin–English speakers. International Journal of Bilingualism. 16(2), 213 – 227.
Unsworth, N., Spillers, G. J., & Brewer, G. A. (2010). The contributions of primary and secondary memory to working memory capacity: An individual differences analysis of immediate free recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 240–247.
Ungerleider, L.G. & Haxby. J.V. (1994). “What” and “Where” in the human brain. Curr Opin Neurobiol., 4, 157–165.
Van Dyke, J. A., Johns, C. L., & Kukona, A. (2014). Low working memory capacity is only spuriously related to poor reading comprehension. Cognition, 131(3), 373–403.
Virshup, E. & Virshup, B. (1980). Visual imagery: The language of the right brain Imagery. Singapore: Springer.
Westbury, C. F., Cribben, I., & Cummine, J. (2016). Imaging Imageability: Behavioral Effects and Neural Correlates of Its Interaction with Affect and Context. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10, 346.
Yang, F.G., Edens, J., Simpson, C., Krawczyk, D.C. (2009). Differences in task demands influence the hemispheric lateralization and neural correlates of metaphor. Brain and Language, 111(2),114–124.
Yang, F.G., Fuller, J., Khodaparast, N., Krawczyk, D.C. (2010). Figurative language processing after traumatic brain injury in adults: A preliminary study. Neuropsychologia, 48,1923–1929.
Yu, Y., FitzGerald, T. H. B., & Friston, K. J. (2013). Working Memory and Anticipatory Set Modulate Midbrain and Putamen Activity. The Journal of Neuroscience, 33(35), 14040–14047.
Yang, J. (2014) The role of the right hemisphere in metaphor comprehension: a meta-analysis
of functional magnetic resonance imaging studies. Hum. Brain Mapp, 35, 107–122.
Zhang, S. & Li, C.S. (2012). Functional networks for cognitive control in a stop signal task: independent component analysis. Hum Brain Mapp, 33(1), 89–104.
Zhou, H., Rossi, S., & Chen, B. (2017). Effects of Working Memory Capacity and Tasks in Processing L2 Complex Sentence: Evidence from Chinese-English Bilinguals. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 595.