Cited by 141Neurobiology of Language and BilingualismTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesAction Observation and Synchronization

Cerebellar rTMS disrupts predictive language processing

Open access
Lesage, Elise, Morgan, Blaire E., Olson, Andrew C., Meyer, Antje S., Miall, R. Chris·2012·Current Biology

Abstract

The human cerebellum plays an important role in language, amongst other cognitive and motor functions [1], but a unifying theoretical framework about cerebellar language function is lacking. In an established model of motor control, the cerebellum is seen as a predictive machine, making short-term estimations about the outcome of motor commands. This allows for flexible control, on-line correction, and coordination of movements [2]. The homogeneous cytoarchitecture of the cerebellar cortex suggests that similar computations occur throughout the structure, operating on different input signals and with different output targets [3]. Several authors have therefore argued that this ‘motor' model may extend to cerebellar nonmotor functions [3–5], and that the cerebellum may support prediction in language processing [6]. However, this hypothesis has never been directly tested. Here, we used the ‘Visual World' paradigm [7], where on-line processing of spoken sentence content can be assessed by recording the latencies of listeners' eye movements towards objects mentioned. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) was used to disrupt function in the right cerebellum, a region implicated in language [8]. After cerebellar rTMS, listeners showed delayed eye fixations to target objects predicted by sentence content, while there was no effect on eye fixations in sentences without predictable content. The prediction deficit was absent in two control groups. Our findings support the hypothesis that computational operations performed by the cerebellum may support prediction during both motor control and language processing.

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.cub.2012.07.006

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [7]Altmann G.T.M. Kamide Y. Incremental interpretation at verbs Cognition 73 1999 247 264 10585516

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lesage, E., Morgan, B. E., Olson, A. C., Meyer, A. S., & Miall, R. C.
Affiliations
  • University of Birmingham (GB)
  • Max Planck Society (DE)
Corresponding author
Lesage, Elise
Venue
Current Biology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-09
Volume
22
Issue
18
Pages
R794-R795
ISSN
0960-9822 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2039237595
Cited by
141
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 11
FWCI
5.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Current Biology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Wellcome Trust (WT087554)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Action Observation and Synchronization
Keywords
cerebellum, language processing, predictive processing, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, eye fixations, visual world paradigm, sentence comprehension, motor control models
MeSH terms
Cerebellum, Cognition, Fixation, Ocular, Humans, Language, Psychomotor Performance, Speech, Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation

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