Nonetheless, the indeterminate nature of many aspects of figurative meaning, a fact that is not properly acknowledged in many psycholinguistic studies, raises important issues about the possible trade-off between minimizing cognitive effort and maximizing cognitive effects during figurative language processing.
Some of the issues that may affect the delivery of CBT in ASD youth are difficulties responding to social cues and engaging in reciprocal exchanges [ 17], as well as reduced verbal skills and difficulties processing figurative meaning [ 15].
Figurative language does not constitute a unified class of linguistic materials that are understood by special figurative processes.
It is important to disambiguate these issues to improve our basic knowledge of figurative language processing, to more precisely define how the right hemisphere supports language, and to facilitate our ability to understand and treat language impairments.
The mechanism for the figurative-cue processing appears to develop based on agency-related experience derived from the contingency cue; infants begin self-recognition of noncontingent images (e.g., photos and recorded videos) after they acquire abilities related to contingent images (e.g., mirrors and live videos) (Bigelow 1981; Courage et al. 2004).
The peaks that were not sensitive to the contingency cue (i.e., dedicated to figurative-cue processing; Fig. 2 c) were segregated into 2 groups based on their sensitivity to the static self-face (horizontal axis in the upper panel of Fig. 4 a): aSMG, pITG, and oIFG were responsive to a static neutral self-face (green circles), but other occipitoparietal regions and pSFG were not (beige circles).
Individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) are commonly believed to have difficulty understanding figurative language; however, recent evidence suggests that these difficulties may reflect processing differences as opposed to inability to comprehend.
Duality-of-mind theories (see Gawronski & Creighton, 2013), which describe and compare the automatic (heuristic) and the reflective (systematic) minds, reveal that a figurative form of material is appropriate for automatic (System 1: Kahneman, 2011) processing.
Our data demonstrated that multiple processes at the perceptual or semantic level play roles in the processing of 2 perceptual cues (i.e., contingency and figurative) and their integration.
Her research is in the area of natural language processing with a specific focus on computational semantics, figurative language processing, multilingual NLP and cognitively-driven semantics.
