The DOI matches its Crossref record; 45 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 1 of the 39 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Functional specificity for high-level linguistic processing in the human brain
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
21 Own result · 13 Not checked yet · 12 Own interpretation · 4 Own method · 4 No basis given · 1 Supported so far
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Furthermore, it is consistent with evidence for fine-grained cytoarchitectonic subdivisions within Broca's area (37, 38).”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [37] Amunts K, et al. Broca's region: Novel organizational principles and multiple receptor mapping. PLoS Biol. 2010;8:e1000489. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1000489. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
The Results section reports cytoarchitectonic subdivisions of Broca’s areas 44 and 45 into 44d/44v and 45a/45p. This supports the cited evidence for fine-grained subdivisions; the sentence does not attribute the overlap region itself to this paper. (LLM, conf=0.93)
- Not checked yetcites [38] Petrides M, Pandya DN. Comparative architectonic analysis of the human and the macaque frontal cortex. In: Boller F, Grafman J, editors. Handbook of neuropsychology. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Ltd; 1994. pp. 17–58. [Google Scholar]
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the response to intact music is barely above the fixation baseline (and lower than the response to the language localizer control task)”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At the threshold used for the ROI analyses, no spatially systematic regions were detected in which language activations overlapped with any of the seven nonlinguistic tasks, confirming the overall picture of language specificity found in the ROI analyses.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the response to intact music is barely above the fixation baseline (and lower than the response to the language localizer control task)”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The current results show that most of the key cortical regions engaged in high-level linguistic processing are not engaged by mental arithmetic, general working memory, cognitive control, or musical processing, indicating a high degree of functional specificity in the brain regions that support language.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“[This threshold is not too stringent to discover true overlap when it exists; at the same threshold, we discovered robust overlap regions in the frontal and parietal lobes between Stroop and the multisource interference task (MSIT) cognitive control task in a subset of the subjects run on both tasks.]”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One frontal language ROI left middle frontal gyrus (LMFG) showed a significant response to verbal working memory after correcting for the number of ROIs; this region is, thus, not specialized for sentence understanding.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“we find no hint of activation for either of the other two cognitive control tasks [the MSIT task (39) and its variant, verbal MSIT (vMSIT)]”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [39] Bush G, Shin LM. The Multi-Source Interference Task: An fMRI task that reliably activates the cingulo-frontal-parietal cognitive/attention network. Nat Protoc. 2006;1:308–313. doi: 10.1038/nprot.2006.48. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Furthermore, although this region does respond more strongly to intact than scrambled musical stimuli (consistent with some previous claims) (21), the response to intact music is barely above the fixation baseline (and lower than the response to the language localizer control task)”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [21] Maess B, Koelsch S, Gunter TC, Friederici AD. Musical syntax is processed in Broca's area: An MEG study. Nat Neurosci. 2001;4:540–545. doi: 10.1038/87502. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The third region, present in 85% of the subjects, emerged in the posterior part of our left inferior frontal gyrus (LIFG) language ROI and responded to both language and verbal WM”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The music contrast did produce some response in several language ROIs (SI Text), suggesting possibly overlapping circuits; however, these effects were weak overall, and none survived correction for multiple comparisons.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As expected, reading sentences elicited a reliably stronger response than reading nonwords in each region of interest (ROI) (Materials and Methods, Fig. 2, black and gray bars, and Fig. S1, black and gray bars)”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We find little or no response in language regions to these nonlinguistic functions.”
- Also stated in: § Results · plain
“they had little effect in the language ROIs”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Results · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“one region was located within the LMFG language ROI and responded to both language and verbal WM”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“another region was within the LMidPostTemp language ROI and responded to language and music”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, no other ROIs showed reliable responses to any of the nonlinguistic tasks, indicating a striking degree of functional specificity for language processing.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although each nonlinguistic task produced robust activations at the individual subject level in nearby brain regions (Fig. 3), they had little effect in the language ROIs.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To maximize our chances of discovering activation overlap, we performed the same analysis again but now with very liberally thresholded individual maps. This analysis discovered three overlap regions.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“although we do see a weak response to the Stroop task in this region”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“(a similar region emerged in the analysis of the overlap of language and Stroop activations, although it was present in only 71% of the subjects)”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In several ROIs, some of the nonlinguistic tasks resulted in deactivation relative to the fixation baseline.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, no other ROIs showed reliable responses to any of the nonlinguistic tasks, indicating a striking degree of functional specificity for language processing.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“[This threshold is not too stringent to discover true overlap when it exists; at the same threshold, we discovered robust overlap regions in the frontal and parietal lobes between Stroop and the multisource interference task (MSIT) cognitive control task in a subset of the subjects run on both tasks.]”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One frontal language ROI left middle frontal gyrus (LMFG) showed a significant response to verbal working memory after correcting for the number of ROIs; this region is, thus, not specialized for sentence understanding.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In addition, frontal and parietal brain regions engaged in a very domain general fashion in many demanding cognitive tasks (33–35) may be necessary for many aspects of linguistic function.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [33] Duncan J, Owen AM. Common regions of the human frontal lobe recruited by diverse cognitive demands. Trends Neurosci. 2000;23:475–483. doi: 10.1016/s0166-2236(00)01633-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked yetcites [34] Duncan J. The multiple-demand (MD) system of the primate brain: Mental programs for intelligent behaviour. Trends Cogn Sci. 2010;14:172–179. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2010.01.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked yetcites [35] Miller EK, Cohen JD. An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex function. Annu Rev Neurosci. 2001;24:167–202. doi: 10.1146/annurev.neuro.24.1.167. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, the fact that this region responds to the verbal WM task, which is not traditionally considered to tax cognitive control processes, suggests that this region may instead support demanding cognitive tasks when they involve storing or manipulating verbal representations.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This region—like the language ROI encompassing it (LIFG ROI)—is unlikely to support domain general cognitive control, because no overlap regions emerged in posterior LIFG between language and the other two cognitive control tasks (MSIT and vMSIT), consistent with the lack of a response to these tasks in the LIFG language ROI.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The one exception is a brain region located in the left middle frontal gyrus that seems to support both high-level linguistic processing and verbal working memory.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This localizer was previously shown (29) to robustly and reliably identify each of the key brain regions previously implicated in high-level linguistic processing (30, 31) (Fig. 2 and Fig. S1) in at least 80% of subjects individually”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [29] Fedorenko E, Hsieh PJ, Nieto-Castañón A, Whitfield-Gabrieli S, Kanwisher N. New method for fMRI investigations of language: Defining ROIs functionally in individual subjects. J Neurophysiol. 2010;104:1177–1194. doi: 10.1152/jn.00032.2010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked yetcites [30] Binder JR, et al. Human brain language areas identified by functional magnetic resonance imaging. J Neurosci. 1997;17:353–362. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.17-01-00353.1997. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked yetcites [31] Neville HJ, et al. Cerebral organization for language in deaf and hearing subjects: Biological constraints and effects of experience. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1998;95:922–929. doi: 10.1073/pnas.95.3.922. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, language processing probably requires both the very specialized regions studied here and more domain general regions.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Our data are difficult to reconcile with the widely favored hypothesis that this region is engaged in domain general cognitive control (8, 17); although we do see a weak response to the Stroop task in this region, we find no hint of activation for either of the other two cognitive control tasks [the MSIT task (39) and its variant, verbal MSIT (vMSIT)].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [8] Novick JM, Trueswell JC, Thompson-Schill SL. Cognitive control and parsing: Reexamining the role of Broca's area in sentence comprehension. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2005;5:263–281. doi: 10.3758/cabn.5.3.263. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked yetcites [17] January D, Trueswell JC, Thompson-Schill SL. Co-localization of stroop and syntactic ambiguity resolution in Broca's area: Implications for the neural basis of sentence processing. J Cogn Neurosci. 2009;21:2434–2444. doi: 10.1162/jocn.2008.21179. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked yetcites [39] Bush G, Shin LM. The Multi-Source Interference Task: An fMRI task that reliably activates the cingulo-frontal-parietal cognitive/attention network. Nat Protoc. 2006;1:308–313. doi: 10.1038/nprot.2006.48. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The current results show that most of the key cortical regions engaged in high-level linguistic processing are not engaged by mental arithmetic, general working memory, cognitive control, or musical processing, indicating a high degree of functional specificity in the brain regions that support language.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“making it difficult to argue that this region supports general structural processing of complex stimuli that unfold over time (9, 20, 21).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [9] Levitin DJ, Menon V. Musical structure is processed in “language” areas of the brain: A possible role for Brodmann Area 47 in temporal coherence. Neuroimage. 2003;20:2142–2152. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2003.08.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked yetcites [20] Levitin DJ, Menon V. The neural locus of temporal structure and expectancies in music: Evidence from functional neuroimaging at 3 Tesla. Music Percept. 2005;22:563–575. [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked yetcites [21] Maess B, Koelsch S, Gunter TC, Friederici AD. Musical syntax is processed in Broca's area: An MEG study. Nat Neurosci. 2001;4:540–545. doi: 10.1038/87502. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These patterns simply indicate that the region in question was more active during rest (when participants are plausibly engaged in daydreaming, presumably sometimes including verbal thinking) than during the task in question.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Such findings do not suffice to demonstrate common brain regions for linguistic and nonlinguistic functions in the brain.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“To conclude, discoveries of linguistic specificity provide answers to the longstanding question of whether high-level cognitive functions are supported by dedicated neural machinery (45) and provide important clues into the mental operations supported by these regions.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [45] Kanwisher N. Functional specificity in the human brain: A window into the functional architecture of the mind. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2010;107:11163–11170. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1005062107. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Definitively addressing the question of neural overlap between linguistic and nonlinguistic functions requires examining overlap within individual subjects (27, 28), a data analysis strategy that has almost never been applied in neuroimaging investigations of high-level linguistic processing.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [27] Fedorenko E, Kanwisher N. Neuroimaging of language: Why hasn't a clearer picture emerged? Lang Linguist Compass. 2009;3:839–865. [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked yetcites [28] Saxe R, Brett M, Kanwisher N. Divide and conquer: A defense of functional localizers. Neuroimage. 2006;30:1088–1096. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.12.062. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Furthermore, unlike the language contrasts used in some prior studies (17, 21), this contrast does not confound linguistic processing and general cognitive effort, because the memory probe task is more difficult in the control (nonwords) condition.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [17] January D, Trueswell JC, Thompson-Schill SL. Co-localization of stroop and syntactic ambiguity resolution in Broca's area: Implications for the neural basis of sentence processing. J Cogn Neurosci. 2009;21:2434–2444. doi: 10.1162/jocn.2008.21179. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked yetcites [21] Maess B, Koelsch S, Gunter TC, Friederici AD. Musical syntax is processed in Broca's area: An MEG study. Nat Neurosci. 2001;4:540–545. doi: 10.1038/87502. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The neuropsychological literature features striking dissociations between deficits in linguistic and nonlinguistic abilities (1–6).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [1] Broca P. [Notes on the seat of the faculty of articulate language, followed by an observation of aphemia. Bull Soc Anat Paris. 1861;6:330–357. French. [Google Scholar]
- Not checked yetcites [2] Wernicke C. In: Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Cohen RS, Wartofsky MW, editors. Vol 4. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel; 1969. [Google Scholar]
- Not checked yetcites [3] Varley RA, Klessinger NJC, Romanowski CAJ, Siegal M. Agrammatic but numerate. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2005;102:3519–3524. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0407470102. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked yetcites [4] Luria AR, Tsvetkova LS, Futer DS. Aphasia in a composer (V. G. Shebalin) J Neurol Sci. 1965;2:288–292. doi: 10.1016/0022-510x(65)90113-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked yetcites [5] Peretz I, Coltheart M. Modularity of music processing. Nat Neurosci. 2003;6:688–691. doi: 10.1038/nn1083. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked yetcites [6] Apperly IA, Samson D, Carroll N, Hussain S, Humphreys G. Intact first- and second-order false belief reasoning in a patient with severely impaired grammar. Soc Neurosci. 2006;1:334–348. doi: 10.1080/17470910601038693. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The sentences > nonwords contrast targets brain regions engaged in high-level linguistic processing (sentence understanding), including lexical and combinatorial processes but excluding phonological and other lower-level processes.*”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The existence of this overlap region in posterior LIFG is consistent with the weak trends that we found in the LIFG language ROI for verbal WM and Stroop.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 10
- Probably not a substantial claim. 8
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The music contrast did produce some response in several language ROIs (SI Text), suggesting possibly overlapping circuits; however, these effects were weak overall, and none survived correction for multiple comparisons.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nevertheless, a complementary analysis shows that a portion of the LIFG language ROI is selective for high-level linguistic processing and not engaged in either verbal WM or Stroop (Fig. 4).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because the activation patterns were similar across the two tasks, we collapsed the data from these two groups of participants for the current analyses.”
plainn = 4- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Note that the brain regions investigated here are surely not the only ones engaged in or necessary for language processing.”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The order of conditions was counterbalanced; each condition was equally likely to appear in the earlier vs. later parts of each run and was as likely to follow every other condition as it was to precede it.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The resulting piece had component sounds similar to the intact music but lacked musical structure.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These data support a clear distinction between language and other cognitive processes, resolving the prior conflict between the neuropsychological and neuroimaging literatures.”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, ROI analyses can obscure functional heterogeneity within an ROI or miss important overlapping regions outside the borders of the ROI.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Of course, the question of the relationship between linguistic and nonlinguistic processes extends to other aspects of language (e.g., sound-level processes), which we are not targeting with the current language localizer task.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The responses to the sentences and nonwords conditions were estimated using cross-validation across the functional runs, and therefore, the data used to estimate the effects were always independent of the data used for ROI definition (46).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [46] Vul E, Kanwisher N. Begging the question: The non-independence error in fMRI data analysis. In: Hanson S, Bunzl M, editors. Foundational issues for human brain mapping. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2010. pp. 71–91. [Google Scholar] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“and to be robust to changes in stimulus modality (visual/auditory) (see also ref. 32), specific stimuli, and task (passive reading vs. reading with a probe task, which is used here).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [32] Braze D, et al. Unification of sentence processing via ear and eye: An fMRI study. Cortex. 2011;47:416–431. doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2009.11.005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“However, the neuroimaging claims are based largely on observations of activation for a nonlanguage task in or near a general brain region previously implicated in language (e.g., Broca's area), without a direct demonstration of overlap of linguistic and nonlinguistic activations in the same subjects.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [7] Dehaene S, Spelke E, Pinel P, Stanescu R, Tsivkin S. Sources of mathematical thinking: Behavioral and brain-imaging evidence. Science. 1999;284:970–974. doi: 10.1126/science.284.5416.970. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked yetcites [8] Novick JM, Trueswell JC, Thompson-Schill SL. Cognitive control and parsing: Reexamining the role of Broca's area in sentence comprehension. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2005;5:263–281. doi: 10.3758/cabn.5.3.263. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked yetcites [9] Levitin DJ, Menon V. Musical structure is processed in “language” areas of the brain: A possible role for Brodmann Area 47 in temporal coherence. Neuroimage. 2003;20:2142–2152. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2003.08.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked yetcites [10] Awh E, et al. Dissociation of storage and rehearsal in verbal working memory: Evidence from positron emission tomography. Psych Science. 1996;7:25–31. [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked yetcites [11] Badre D, Poldrack RA, Paré-Blagoev EJ, Insler RZ, Wagner AD. Dissociable controlled retrieval and generalized selection mechanisms in ventrolateral prefrontal cortex. Neuron. 2005;47:907–918. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2005.07.023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked yetcites [12] Blumstein S. Reflections on the cognitive neuroscience of language. In: Gazzaniga M, editor. The Cognitive Neurosciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2009. pp. 1235–1240. [Google Scholar]
- Not checked yetcites [13] Braver TS, et al. A parametric study of prefrontal cortex involvement in human working memory. Neuroimage. 1997;5:49–62. doi: 10.1006/nimg.1996.0247. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked yetcites [14] Bunge SA, Klingberg T, Jacobsen RB, Gabrieli JDE. A resource model of the neural basis of executive working memory. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2000;97:3573–3578. doi: 10.1073/pnas.050583797. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked yetcites [15] Cohen JD, et al. Activation of the prefrontal cortex in a nonspatial working memory task with functional MRI. Hum Brain Mapp. 1994;1:293–304. doi: 10.1002/hbm.460010407. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked yetcites [16] Fadiga L, Craighero L, D'Ausilio A. Broca's area in language, action, and music. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2009;1169:448–458. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04582.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“ROI-based analyses afford great statistical power and reduce the blurring of functional activations inevitable in group analyses.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“(here and throughout the study, responses were estimated using data from left-out runs not used for defining the ROIs).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
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).”
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The hard > easy contrast has been found to robustly activate regions of the MD network (Fedorenko et al., 2011(Fedorenko et al., , 2013)).”
From Functional Specificity and Sex Differences in the Neural Circuits Supporting the Inhibition of Automatic Imitation (2018) · cites this paper as Fedorenko et al., 2011
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Neuroimaging studies have consistently shown that the language network -a set of brain regions responsible for language comprehension and production -remains largely inactive during various reasoning tasks”
From Training Large Language Models to Reason in a Continuous Latent Space (2024) · cites this paper as Fedorenko et al., 2011
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“There is little doubt that perisylvian regions are more involved in processing language inputs than some other brain systems (see, e.g., Blank & Fedorenko, 2017), and may be particularly involved in language tasks (e.g., Fedorenko, Behr, & Kanwisher, 2011).”
From Grounding the neurobiology of language in first principles: The necessity of non-language-centric explanations for language comprehension (2018) · cites this paper as Fedorenko, Behr, & Kanwisher, 2011
In the citing paper
“it responds reliably when people listen to, read, or generate sentences, but not when they perform arithmetic tasks, engage in logical reasoning, understand computer programs, listen to music, categorize objects or events, reason about people’s mental states, or process non-verbal communicative information like facial expressions or gestures [37, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48].”
From Dissociating language and thought in large language models (2024) · cites this paper as [37]
In the citing paper
“is sensitive to linguistic regularities at multiple levels: from phonological/sub-lexical [36] to phrase/sentence level [37, 38]”
From Dissociating language and thought in large language models (2024) · cites this paper as [37]
Citations
Cites
An Integrative Theory of Prefrontal Cortex Function
Miller, E. K., & Cohen, J. D. (2001) · Annual Review of Neuroscience · doi:10.1146/annurev.neuro.24.1.167 · Cited by 12,803
Common regions of the human frontal lobe recruited by diverse cognitive demands
Duncan, J., & Owen, A. M. (2000) · Trends in Neurosciences · doi:10.1016/s0166-2236(00)01633-7 · Cited by 2,498
Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing
Friederici, A. D. (2002) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/s1364-6613(00)01839-8 · Cited by 2,231
Hickok, G., & Poeppel, D. (2004) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2003.10.011 · Cited by 2,212
The Architecture of Cognitive Control in the Human Prefrontal Cortex
Koechlin, É., Ody, C., & Kouneiher, F. (2003) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1088545 · Cited by 1,939
Contributions of memory circuits to language: the declarative/procedural model
Ullman, M. T. (2004) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2003.10.008 · Cited by 1,893
The multiple-demand (MD) system of the primate brain: mental programs for intelligent behaviour
Duncan, J. (2010) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2010.01.004 · Cited by 1,846
Sources of Mathematical Thinking: Behavioral and Brain-Imaging Evidence
Dehaene, S., Spelke, E., Pinel, P., Stanescu, R., & Tsivkin, S. (1999) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.284.5416.970 · Cited by 1,739
A Parametric Study of Prefrontal Cortex Involvement in Human Working Memory
Braver, T. S., Cohen, J. D., Nystrom, L. E., Jonides, J., Smith, E. E., & Noll, D. C. (1997) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1006/nimg.1996.0247 · Cited by 1,694
Human Brain Language Areas Identified by Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Binder, J. R., Frost, J. A., Hammeke, T. A., Cox, R. W., Rao, S. M., & Prieto, T. (1997) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.17-01-00353.1997 · Cited by 1,424
Research works printed but not linked: 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
Broad domain generality in focal regions of frontal and parietal cortex
Fedorenko, E., Duncan, J., & Kanwisher, N. (2013) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1315235110 · Cited by 952
“Note that these tasks were not designed to be directly comparable to one another, even though they have all been shown to produce behavioral difficulty effects with the hard condition, leading to lower accuracies and longer reaction times (2, 27).”
BackgroundSelf-citationReworking the language network
Fedorenko, E., & Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2014) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2013.12.006 · Cited by 615
Self-citationKong, R., Li, J., Orbán, C., et al. (2017) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/213041 · Cited by 81
Language-Selective and Domain-General Regions Lie Side by Side within Broca’s Area
Fedorenko, E. G., Duncan, J., & Kanwisher, N. (2012) · Current Biology · doi:10.1016/j.cub.2012.09.011 · Cited by 494
“(This data set partially overlaps with the data set reported in [13].”
InfluentialSelf-citationFunctional organization of social perception and cognition in the superior temporal sulcus
Deen, B., Koldewyn, K., Kanwisher, N., & Saxe, R. (2015) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhv111 · Cited by 443
“and bodies (Kanwisher 2010), and high-level regions specialized for understanding the meaning of sentences (Binder et al. 1997; Fedorenko et al. 2011) and the contents of other people’s thoughts (Saxe and Kanwisher 2003; Saxe and Powell 2006).”
BackgroundSelf-citation
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
- Publisher
- National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2011-09
- Volume
- 108
- Issue
- 39
- Pages
- 16428-16433
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- PMC
- PMC3182706
- OpenAlex
- W2096462008
- Semantic Scholar
- b62b60be4fe51188d90a27dd9fc695c924a55b0b
- 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
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- 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).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
