Cited by 69Neurobiology of Language and BilingualismReading and Literacy DevelopmentMultisensory perception and integration

Unification of sentence processing via ear and eye: An fMRI study

Open access
Braze, David, Mencl, W. Einar, Tabor, Whitney, Pugh, Kenneth R., Todd Constable, R., Fulbright, Robert K., Magnuson, James S., Van Dyke, Julie A. +1 more·2011·Cortex

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cortex.2009.11.005

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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).”

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

  1. Perlmutter NJ MacDonald M Probabilistic constraints and working memory capacity in syntactic ambiguity resolution Journal of Language and Memory 43 521 542 1995
  2. 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
  3. 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)
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
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