Unification of sentence processing via ear and eye: An fMRI study
Open accessAbstract
We present new evidence based on fMRI for the existence and neural architecture of an abstract supramodal language system that can integrate linguistic inputs arising from different modalities such that speech and print each activate a common code. Working with sentence material, our aim was to find out where the putative supramodal system is located and how it responds to comprehension challenges. To probe these questions we examined BOLD activity in experienced readers while they performed a semantic categorization task with matched written or spoken sentences that were either well-formed or contained anomalies of syntactic form or pragmatic content. On whole-brain scans, both anomalies increased net activity over non-anomalous baseline sentences, chiefly at left frontal and temporal regions of heteromodal cortex. The anomaly-sensitive sites correspond approximately to those that previous studies (Michael et al., 2001; Constable et al., 2004) have found to be sensitive to other differences in sentence complexity (object relative minus subject relative). Regions of interest (ROIs) were defined by peak response to anomaly averaging over modality conditions. Each anomaly-sensitive ROI showed the same pattern of response across sentence types in each modality. Voxel-by-voxel exploration over the whole brain based on a cosine similarity measure of common function confirmed the specificity of supramodal zones.
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
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.
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?
The language localizer is robust to changes in stimulus modality (visual/auditory), specific stimuli, and task (passive reading vs. reading with a probe task).
“and to be robust to changes in stimulus modality (visual/auditory) (see also ref. 32), specific stimuli, and task (passive reading vs. reading with a probe task, which is used here).”
From Functional specificity for high-level linguistic processing in the human brain (2011) · cites this paper as [32]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 73 · Cited by 69
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Perlmutter NJ MacDonald M Probabilistic constraints and working memory capacity in syntactic ambiguity resolution Journal of Language and Memory 43 521 542 1995
- Seltzer B Pandya DN Parietal, temporal and occipital projections to cortex of thesuperior temporal sulcus in the Rhesus monkey Journal of Comparative Neurology 343 445 463 1994 8027452
- Van der Velde F de Kamps M Neural blackboard architectures of combinatorial structures Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29 37 108 2006 16542539
- Authors
- Braze, D., Mencl, W. E., Tabor, W., Pugh, K. R., Todd Constable, R., Fulbright, R. K., Magnuson, J. S., Van Dyke, J. A., & Shankweiler, D. P.
- Affiliations
- Haskins Laboratories (US)
- Yale University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Braze, David
- Venue
- Cortex
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2011-04
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 416-431
- ISSN
- 0010-9452 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC2889140
- OpenAlex
- W2034396283
- Cited by
- 69
- References
- 73
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 6
- FWCI
- 3.10
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Cortex (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- Yale University
- National Institutes of Health
- Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01HD040353, HD-40353)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Multisensory perception and integration
- Keywords
- sentence processing, modality integration, syntactic anomalies, semantic classification
- MeSH terms
- Acoustic Stimulation, Adult, Auditory Perception, Brain Mapping, Cerebral Cortex, Cognition, Concept Formation, Discrimination, Psychological, Evoked Potentials, Female, Humans, Language, Language Tests, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Neural Pathways, Photic Stimulation, Reading, Reference Values, Semantics, Comprehension, Young Adult
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