We investigate the role of two possible sets of factors, cognitive and social, in modulating an individual's linguistic context-sensitivity: the capacity of a neurocognitive system to identify information in a communicative context that satisfies the meaning requirements of a given expression in that context. We assess whether the degree of contextual facilitation of an otherwise dispreferred reading of an English have-sentence is correlated with domain-general cognitive factors—by using the AUTISM-SPECTRUM QUOTIENT (AQ) to index an individual's ‘autistic-like’ traits—and/or with social factors associated with gender expression—by using participants' gender group.

Acceptability ratings (n = 271) for a dispreferred but plausible locative reading were significantly higher only after the facilitatory context, suggesting that relevant context can modulate the acceptability of different readings of a have-sentence. Crucially, the degree of facilitation correlates with participants' AQ scores, but not gender group, directly implicating cognitive variability in linguistic context-sensitivity differences, and leaving open the question of individual-level variability arising from social factors. Our findings are consistent with a model of language variation in which individuals with certain cognitive styles implement their grammatical knowledge at a larger ‘communicative scope’ than others, thereby inducing novel usage patterns of existing variants in their speech community.

This article argues that mirror neurons originate in sensorimotor associative learning and therefore a new approach is needed to investigate their functions. Mirror neurons were discovered about 20 years ago in the monkey brain, and there is now evidence that they are also present in the human brain. The intriguing feature of many mirror neurons is that they fire not only when the animal is performing an action, such as grasping an object using a power grip, but also when the animal passively observes a similar action performed by another agent. It is widely believed that mirror neurons are a genetic adaptation for action understanding; that they were designed by evolution to fulfill a specific socio-cognitive function. In contrast, we argue that mirror neurons are forged by domain-general processes of associative learning in the course of individual development, and, although they may have psychological functions, they do not necessarily have a specific evolutionary purpose or adaptive function. The evidence supporting this view shows that (1) mirror neurons do not consistently encode action “goals”; (2) the contingency- and context-sensitive nature of associative learning explains the full range of mirror neuron properties; (3) human infants receive enough sensorimotor experience to support associative learning of mirror neurons (“wealth of the stimulus”); and (4) mirror neurons can be changed in radical ways by sensorimotor training. The associative account implies that reliable information about the function of mirror neurons can be obtained only by research based on developmental history, system-level theory, and careful experimentation.

Contextual modulations of receptive field properties by distal stimulus configurations have been shown for a variety of stimulus paradigms. A survey of excitatory contextual modulation data for V1 shows the maximum scale of interactions, measured in terms of distance in V1, to be between 10 mm and 30 mm. Different types of excitatory contextual modulation in V1 occur throughout the interval of 40–250 ms after stimulus delivery. This window provides opportunity for global propagation of visual contextual information to a subset of V1 neurons, via several routes within the visual system. We propose a number of experiments and analyses to confirm the results from this empirical survey.

Cells in area V1 of the anesthetized macaque monkey were stimulated with large texture patterns composed of homogeneous regions of line elements (texels) with different orientations. To human observers, such patterns appear to segregate, with the percept of sharp boundaries between texture regions. Our objective was to investigate whether the boundaries are reflected in the responses of single cells in V1. We measured responses to individual texels at different distances from the texture border. For each cell, patterns of optimally or orthogonally orientated texels were adjusted so that only one texel fell into the receptive field and all other texels fell in the visually unresponsive regions outside. In 37 out of 156 neurons tested (24%), texels immediately adjacent to a texture border evoked reliably larger responses than identical texels farther away from the border. In 17 neurons (11%), responses to texels near the border were relatively reduced. Border enhancement effects were generally stronger than border attenuation effects. When tested with four different border configurations (two global orientations and two edge polarities), many cells showed reliable effects for only one or two configurations, consistent with cells encoding information about the orientation of the texture border or its location with respect to the segmented region. Across the sample, enhancement effects were similar for all texture borders. Modulation by the texture surround was predominantly suppressive; even the responses near texture borders were smaller than those to a single line. We compared these results with the results of a popout test in which the line in the receptive field was surrounded by homogeneous texture fields either orthogonal or parallel to the center line. The patterns of response modulation and the temporal onset of differential responses were similar in the two tests, suggesting that the two perceptual phenomena are mediated by similar neural mechanisms.

We studied the effects of contextual modulation in area V1 of anesthetized macaque monkeys. In 146 cells, responses to a single line over the center of the receptive field were compared with those to full texture patterns in which the center line was surrounded by similar lines at either the same orientation (uniform texture) or the orthogonal orientation (orientation contrast). On average, the responses to single lines were reduced by 42% when texture was presented in the surround. Uniform textures often produced stronger suppression (7% more, on average) so that lines with orientation contrast on average evoked larger responses than lines in uniform texture fields. This difference is correlated with perceptual differences between such stimuli, suggesting that physiological mechanisms contributing to the saliency (“popout”) of textural stimuli operate, at least to some degree, even under anesthesia. Significant response modulation by the texture surround was seen in 112 cells (77%). Fifty-three cells (36%) responded differently to the two texture patterns; response preferences for orientation contrast (35 cells; 24%) were seen more often than preferences for uniform textures (18 cells; 12%). The remaining 59 cells (40%) were similarly suppressed by both texture surrounds. Detailed analysis of texture modulation revealed two major components of surround effects: (1) fast nonspecific (“general”) suppression that occurred at about the same latency as excitatory responses and was found in all layers of striate cortex; and (2) differential response modulation that began about 60–70 ms after stimulus onset (about 15–20 ms after the onset of the excitatory response) and was less homogeneously distributed over cortical layers.