The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A new empirical angle on the variability debate: Quantitative neurosyntactic analyses of a large data set from Broca’s Aphasia
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Heritage languages and their speakers: Opportunities and challenges for linguistics
Benmamoun, E., Montrul, S., & Polinsky, M. (2013) · Theoretical Linguistics · doi:10.1515/tl-2013-0009 · Cited by 758
Insights into Human Behavior from Lesions to the Prefrontal Cortex
Szczepanski, S. M., & Knight, R. T. (2014) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2014.08.011 · Cited by 502
Neuroimaging of syntax and syntactic processing
Grodzinsky, Y., & Friederici, A. D. (2006) · Current Opinion in Neurobiology · doi:10.1016/j.conb.2006.03.007 · Cited by 438
Self-citationBig Data and Clinicians: A Review on the State of the Science
Wang, W., & Krishnan, E. (2014) · JMIR Medical Informatics · doi:10.2196/medinform.2913 · Cited by 158
Neuroimaging of Language: Why Hasn't a Clearer Picture Emerged?
Fedorenko, E., & Kanwisher, N. (2009) · Language and Linguistics Compass · doi:10.1111/j.1749-818x.2009.00143.x · Cited by 117
Metadata
- Authors
- Drai, D., & Grodzinsky, Y.
- Venue
- Brain and Language
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2006-02
- Volume
- 96
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 117-128
- ISSN
- 0093-934X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2009729070
- Cited by
- 218
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 3.11
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A new empirical angle on the variability debate: Quantitative neurosyntactic analyses of a large data set from Broca’s Aphasia. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.bandl.2004.10.016
- The paper
- Drai, D., & Grodzinsky, Y. (2006). A new empirical angle on the variability debate: Quantitative neurosyntactic analyses of a large data set from Broca’s Aphasia. Brain and Language. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2004.10.016
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
