Cited by 134Neurobiology of Language and BilingualismReading and Literacy DevelopmentTactile and Sensory Interactions

Impact of modality and linguistic complexity during reading and listening tasks

Jobard, G., Vigneau, M., Mazoyer, B., Tzourio-Mazoyer, N.·2007·NeuroImage

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.06.067

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

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