Impact of modality and linguistic complexity during reading and listening tasks
Abstract
Reading and understanding speech are usually considered as different manifestations of a single cognitive ability, that of language. In this study, we were interested in characterizing the specific contributions of input modality and linguistic complexity on the neural networks involved when subjects understand language. We conducted an fMRI study during which 10 right-handed male subjects had to read and listen to words, sentences and texts in different runs. By comparing reading to listening tasks, we were able to show that the cerebral regions specifically recruited by a given modality were circumscribed to unimodal and associative unimodal cortices associated with the task, indicating that higher cognitive processes required by the task may be common to both modalities. Such cognitive processes involved a common phonological network as well as lexico-semantic activations as revealed by the conjunction between all reading and listening tasks. The restriction of modality-specific regions to their corresponding unimodal cortices was replicated when looking at brain areas showing a greater increase during the comprehension of more complex linguistic units than words (such as sentences and texts) for each modality. Finally, we discuss the possible roles of regions showing pure effect of linguistic complexity, such as the anterior part of the superior temporal gyrus and the ventro-posterior part of the middle temporal gyrus that were activated for sentences and texts but not for isolated words, as well as a text-specific region found in the left posterior STS.
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.
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 66 · Cited by 134
- Authors
- Jobard, G., Vigneau, M., Mazoyer, B., & Tzourio-Mazoyer, N.
- Affiliations
- Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
- Venue
- NeuroImage
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2007-01
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 784-800
- ISSN
- 1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2054842501
- Cited by
- 134
- References
- 66
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 9
- FWCI
- 1.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- HAL (submittedVersion)
- 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 › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
- Keywords
- reading comprehension, speech understanding, input modality, linguistic complexity, association cortex, phonological processing, superior temporal gyrus, middle temporal gyrus, text comprehension, sentence comprehension, language comprehension
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Brain, Brain Mapping, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Reading, Speech, Speech Perception
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