Cited by 1,448Neurobiology of Language and BilingualismReading and Literacy DevelopmentNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

Functional specialization for semantic and phonological processing in the left inferior prefrontal cortex

Open access
Poldrack, Russell A., Wagner, Anthony D., Prull, Matthew W., Desmond, John E., Glover, Gary H., Gabrieli, John D.E.·1999·NeuroImage

Abstract

Neuroimaging and neuropsychological studies have implicated left inferior prefrontal cortex (LIPC) in both semantic and phonological processing. In this study, functional magnetic resonance imaging was used to examine whether separate LIPC regions participate in each of these types of processing. Performance of a semantic decision task resulted in extensive LIPC activation compared to a perceptual control task. Phonological processing of words and pseudowords in a syllable-counting task resulted in activation of the dorsal aspect of the left inferior frontal gyrus near the inferior frontal sulcus (BA 44/45) compared to a perceptual control task, with greater activation for nonwords compared to words. In a direct comparison of semantic and phonological tasks, semantic processing preferentially activated the ventral aspect of the left inferior frontal gyrus (BA 47/45). A review of the literature demonstrated a similar distinction between left prefrontal regions involved in semantic processing and phonological/lexical processing. The results suggest that a distinct region in the left inferior frontal cortex is involved in semantic processing, whereas other regions may subserve phonological processes engaged during both semantic and phonological tasks.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1006/nimg.1999.0441

Cites

73 of 73 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Poldrack, R. A., Wagner, A. D., Prull, M. W., Desmond, J. E., Glover, G. H., & Gabrieli, J. D. E.
Affiliations
Stanford University (US)
Corresponding author
Poldrack, Russell A.
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1999-07
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
15-35
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2107627409
Cited by
1,448
References
73
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 37 · 2019: 64 · 2018: 49 · 2017: 59 · 2016: 57 · 2015: 53 · 2014: 43 · 2013: 49 · 2012: 81
FWCI
21.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
semantic processing, phonological processing, functional specialization, inferior frontal gyrus, syllable counting, pseudowords, word recognition, language lateralization
MeSH terms
Brain Mapping, Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Mental Processes, Phonetics, Reaction Time, Semantics, Speech Perception, Reproducibility of Results, Prefrontal Cortex

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review