Cited by 595Neurobiology of Language and BilingualismReading and Literacy DevelopmentLanguage Development and Disorders

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 45 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 39 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Functional specificity for high-level linguistic processing in the human brain

Open access
Fedorenko, Evelina, Behr, Michael K., Kanwisher, Nancy·2011·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Neuroscientists have debated for centuries whether some regions of the human brain are selectively engaged in specific high-level mental functions or whether, instead, cognition is implemented in multifunctional brain regions. For the critical case of language, conflicting answers arise from the neuropsychological literature, which features striking dissociations between deficits in linguistic and nonlinguistic abilities, vs. the neuroimaging literature, which has argued for overlap between activations for linguistic and nonlinguistic processes, including arithmetic, domain general abilities like cognitive control, and music. Here, we use functional MRI to define classic language regions functionally in each subject individually and then examine the response of these regions to the nonlinguistic functions most commonly argued to engage these regions: arithmetic, working memory, cognitive control, and music. We find little or no response in language regions to these nonlinguistic functions. These data support a clear distinction between language and other cognitive processes, resolving the prior conflict between the neuropsychological and neuroimaging literatures.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Using fMRI, the authors functionally defined language regions in each subject and tested whether those regions respond to arithmetic, working memory, cognitive control, or music. They found little or no response to these nonlinguistic functions, supporting a clear distinction between language and other cognitive processes.

Key findings

  • Across seven nonlinguistic tasks, language-sensitive ROIs showed little or no response; no other ROIs showed reliable responses to any nonlinguistic task after correction, except one left middle frontal gyrus (LMFG) ROI that responded significantly to verbal working memory.
  • The music contrast produced some response in several language ROIs, but effects were weak overall and none survived correction for multiple comparisons.
  • Whole-brain overlap analyses at the ROI-analysis threshold found no spatially systematic regions where language activations overlapped with any of the seven nonlinguistic tasks; with liberal thresholding, three overlap regions emerged, including posterior left inferior frontal gyrus (LIFG) overlap with verbal working memory in 85% of subjects and a similar region with Stroop in 71%.
  • The authors conclude that most key cortical regions for high-level linguistic processing are not engaged by mental arithmetic, general working memory, cognitive control, or musical processing, with the LMFG as the main exception.

Methods

  • Forty-eight right-handed native English speakers (31 females, ages 18–40) participated; each was run on a language localizer and one or more nonlinguistic tasks. Task-specific samples were: math n = 11, spatial WM n = 12, verbal WM n = 13, MSIT n = 15, vMSIT n = 12, Stroop n = 14, and music n = 12, with overlapping subjects across tasks.
  • The language localizer contrasted reading sentences vs. pronounceable nonwords with a memory probe; nonlinguistic experiments contrasted harder vs. easier conditions for arithmetic, spatial WM, verbal WM, MSIT, vMSIT, and Stroop, and intact vs. scrambled music.
  • fMRI data were collected on a 3-T Siemens Trio, analyzed with SPM5 and custom MATLAB scripts; language ROIs were defined per subject by intersecting group-level parcels with individual localizer maps thresholded at P < 0.001 uncorrected, and responses were estimated using cross-validation across runs.

Limitations

  • The paper states that the investigated regions are not the only ones engaged in or necessary for language: language also requires auditory/visual and motor cortex, and domain-general frontal/parietal regions may be necessary for many linguistic functions.
  • The paper states that the computations in the posterior LIFG overlap region remain an open question and that higher spatial resolution might reveal the apparent overlap to be artifactual due to proximity of language-sensitive and demanding-task regions.
  • The paper notes that the localizer targets high-level linguistic processing and does not address other aspects of language such as sound-level processes; evident from the text, the whole-brain overlap findings required liberal thresholding, and per-task samples were small (11–15 participants) with overlapping subjects across experiments.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.1112937108

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

21 Own result · 14 Not checked yet · 12 Own interpretation · 4 Own method · 4 No basis given

Verify all 39 references — free account

Show all 41 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 10
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 8
14 of 14
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The individual-subject overlap analysis strategy has almost never been applied in neuroimaging investigations of high-level linguistic processing.

    “a data analysis strategy that has almost never been applied in neuroimaging investigations of high-level linguistic processing”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Most claims about the overlap between linguistic and nonlinguistic processes have concerned syntactic processing.

    “However, most claims about the overlap between linguistic and nonlinguistic processes have concerned (i) syntactic processing, which is included in our functional contrast, and (ii) brain regions, which are robustly activated by our localizer (e.g., Broca's area).”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Most claims about the overlap between linguistic and nonlinguistic processes have concerned brain regions robustly activated by the language localizer.

    “However, most claims about the overlap between linguistic and nonlinguistic processes have concerned (i) syntactic processing, which is included in our functional contrast, and (ii) brain regions, which are robustly activated by our localizer (e.g., Broca's area).”
3 of 3

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 0 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. P Broca, [Notes on the seat of the faculty of articulate language, followed by an observation of aphemia. Bull Soc Anat Paris 6, 330–357, French. (1861).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–400 of 517

Metadata

Authors
Fedorenko, E., Behr, M. K., & Kanwisher, N.
Affiliations
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
  • Brain and Cognitive Sciences Department and
  • McGovern Institute for Brain Research (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2011-09
Volume
108
Issue
39
Pages
16428-16433
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2096462008
Cited by
595
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 43 · 2025: 52 · 2024: 75 · 2023: 42 · 2022: 47 · 2021: 61 · 2020: 38 · 2019: 32 · 2018: 38 · 2017: 33 · 2016: 34 · 2015: 35 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 24 · 2012: 17
FWCI
10.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Funders
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  • National Institutes of Health (5k99hd057522-02)
  • McGovern Institute for Brain Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  • National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (K99 HD-057522)
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 › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
Keywords
language lateralization, functional specificity, language regions, arithmetic, working memory, cognitive control, music processing, domain specificity
MeSH terms
Brain, Female, Humans, Linguistics, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Speech

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-07, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-07 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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