Cited by 54

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Activity levels in the left hemisphere caudate–fusiform circuit predict how well a second language will be learned

Tan, Li Hai, Chen, Lin, Yip, Virginia, Chan, Alice H. D., Yang, Jing, Gao, Jia-Hong, Siok, Wai Ting·2011·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

How second language (L2) learning is achieved in the human brain remains one of the fundamental questions of neuroscience and linguistics. Previous neuroimaging studies with bilinguals have consistently shown overlapping cortical organization of the native language (L1) and L2, leading to a prediction that a common neurobiological marker may be responsible for the development of the two languages. Here, by using functional MRI, we show that later skills to read in L2 are predicted by the activity level of the fusiform–caudate circuit in the left hemisphere, which nonetheless is not predictive of the ability to read in the native language. We scanned 10-y-old children while they performed a lexical decision task on L2 (and L1) stimuli. The subjects’ written language (reading) skills were behaviorally assessed twice, the first time just before we performed the fMRI scan (time 1 reading) and the second time 1 y later (time 2 reading). A whole-brain based analysis revealed that activity levels in left caudate and left fusiform gyrus correlated with L2 literacy skills at time 1. After controlling for the effects of time 1 reading and nonverbal IQ, or the effect of in-scanner lexical performance, the development in L2 literacy skills (time 2 reading) was also predicted by activity in left caudate and fusiform regions that are thought to mediate language control functions and resolve competition arising from L1 during L2 learning. Our findings suggest that the activity level of left caudate and fusiform regions serves as an important neurobiological marker for predicting accomplishment in reading skills in a new language.

Overview

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 · 10.1073/pnas.0909623108

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 5 references

Research works printed but not linked: 37

  1. Wei Li, A user-friendly linguistics. Int J Appl Linguist 17, 1–3 (2007).
  2. 10.1006/brln.1999.2186 · DOI
  3. 10.1002/hbm.20255 · DOI
  4. 10.1002/hbm.10089 · DOI
  5. 10.1196/annals.1416.000 · DOI
  6. 10.1044/1092-4388(2006/041) · DOI
  7. 10.1016/S0730-725X(01)00379-4 · DOI
  8. 10.1097/00001756-200505120-00021 · DOI
  9. Wei Li Bilingualism and Multilingualism: Critical Concepts in Linguistics (Routledge, London, 2009).
  10. 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2006.00357.x · DOI
  11. 10.1093/brain/122.12.2221 · DOI
  12. 10.1126/science.1127761 · DOI
  13. MT Ullman, A cognitive neuroscience perspective on second language acquisition: the declarative/procedural model. Mind and Context in Adult Second Language Acquisition: Methods, Theory, and Practice, ed C Sanz (Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC), pp. 141–178
  14. 10.1016/j.tics.2005.03.003 · DOI · Paper page
  15. JF Kroll, AMB de Groot Handbook of Bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (Oxford Univ Press, New York, 2005).
  16. 10.1162/jocn.2008.20011 · DOI
  17. 10.1038/nature02865 · DOI
  18. 10.1001/archneur.1997.00550170042013 · DOI
  19. CA Perfetti, The representation problem in reading acquisition. Reading Acquisition, eds PB Gough, LC Ehri, R Treiman (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ), pp. 145–174 (1992).
  20. 10.1080/10888430701530730 · DOI · Paper page
  21. 10.1093/scan/nsp011 · DOI
  22. 10.1162/jocn.2009.21352 · DOI · Paper page
  23. 10.1002/hbm.20174 · DOI
  24. 10.1002/hbm.20098 · DOI
  25. J Abutalebi, A Miozzo, SF Cappa, Do subcortical structures control “language selection” in polyglots? Evidence from pathological language mixing. Neurocase 6, 51–56 (2000).
  26. 10.1146/annurev.ne.18.030195.001205 · DOI · Paper page
  27. 10.1126/science.282.5386.108 · DOI
  28. 10.1038/nn1501 · DOI
  29. 10.1037/0735-7044.121.3.602 · DOI
  30. 10.1017/CBO9780511620744 · DOI
  31. 10.1126/science.1195067 · DOI · Paper page
  32. 10.1006/brln.1995.1014 · DOI
  33. 10.1136/jnnp.57.1.121 · DOI
  34. 10.1017/S0140525X00015491 · DOI
  35. 10.1016/S0010-9452(08)70495-7 · DOI
  36. 10.1016/j.yebeh.2006.04.005 · DOI
  37. J Talairach, P Tournoux Co-Planar Stereotactic Atlas of the Human Brain (Theime Medical, New York, 1988).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Tan, L. H., Chen, L., Yip, V., Chan, A. H. D., Yang, J., Gao, J.-H., & Siok, W. T.
Affiliations
  • State Key Laboratory of Brain and Cognitive Sciences and
  • Beijing MRI Center for Brain Research and State Key Laboratory of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Institute of Biophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China;
  • Department of Linguistics and Modern Languages, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong, China; and
  • Department of Radiology and Brain Research Imaging Center, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2011-01-24
Volume
108
Issue
6
Pages
2540-2544
ISSN
  • 0027-8424
  • 1091-6490
Cited by
54
References
5
Language
en

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