Cited by 14Neurobiology of Language and BilingualismCategorization, perception, and languageReading and Literacy Development

The language network is not engaged in object categorization

Open access
Benn, Yael, Ivanova, Anna A, Clark, Oliver, Mineroff, Zachary, Seikus, Chloe, Silva, Jack Santos, Varley, Rosemary, Fedorenko, Evelina·2023·Cerebral Cortex

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

The relationship between language and thought is the subject of long-standing debate. One claim states that language facilitates categorization of objects based on a certain feature (e.g. color) through the use of category labels that reduce interference from other, irrelevant features. Therefore, language impairment is expected to affect categorization of items grouped by a single feature (low-dimensional categories, e.g. “Yellow Things”) more than categorization of items that share many features (high-dimensional categories, e.g. “Animals”). To test this account, we conducted two behavioral studies with individuals with aphasia and an fMRI experiment with healthy adults. The aphasia studies showed that selective low-dimensional categorization impairment was present in some, but not all, individuals with severe anomia and was not characteristic of aphasia in general. fMRI results revealed little activity in language-responsive brain regions during both low- and high-dimensional categorization; instead, categorization recruited the domain-general multiple-demand network (involved in wide-ranging cognitive tasks). Combined, results demonstrate that the language system is not implicated in object categorization. Instead, selective low-dimensional categorization impairment might be caused by damage to brain regions responsible for cognitive control. Our work adds to the growing evidence of the dissociation between the language system and many cognitive tasks in adults.

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 · 10.1093/cercor/bhad289

Cites

157 of 157 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

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?

  • fMRI reveals that the language network 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.

    “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 [42]

  • Individuals with language deficits may struggle to produce grammatical utterances and retrieve contextually appropriate words, but their ability to reason about objects and events presented non-linguistically often remains intact.

    “Individuals with language deficits may struggle to produce grammatical utterances and retrieve contextually appropriate words, but their ability to reason about objects and events presented non-linguistically often remains intact [42, 151].”

    From Dissociating language and thought in large language models (2024) · cites this paper as [42]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Blumstein SE. Neurolinguistics: an overview of language–brain relations in aphasia. In: Newmeyer FJ, editor. Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey: Volume 3: language: psychological and biological aspects [Internet]. Vol. 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1988 [ accessed 2021 Sep 23]; p. 210– 236.
  2. Dennett DC. The role of language in intelligence In: Khalfa J, editor. What is intelligence? Cambridge, UK: the Darwin College lectures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1994.
  3. Goodglass H, Geschwind N. Language disturbance (aphasia). In: Carterette EC, Friedman MP, editors. Handbook of perception. Vol. 7. New York: Academic Press; 1976. pp. 389– 428
  4. Goodglass H, Kaplan E, Weintraub S. BDAE: The Boston diagnostic aphasia examination. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2001.
  5. Kuznetsova A, Brockhoff PB, Christensen RHB. lmerTest package: tests in linear mixed effects models. J Stat Softw. 2017: 82(1): 1– 26.
  6. Smith LB, Heise D. Perceptual similarity and conceptual structure. In: Burns B, editor. Advances in psychology. Vol. 93. North-Holland: Elsevier; 1992. pp. 233– 272.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Benn, Y., Ivanova, A. A., Clark, O., Mineroff, Z., Seikus, C., Silva, J. S., Varley, R., & Fedorenko, E.
Affiliations
  • Manchester Metropolitan University (GB)
  • McGovern Institute for Brain Research (US)
  • University College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Benn, Yael
Venue
Cerebral Cortex
Published
2023-08-09
Volume
33
Issue
19
Pages
10380-10400
ISSN
  • 1047-3211 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2199
OpenAlex
W4385690887
Cited by
14
References
157
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1
FWCI
1.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cerebral Cortex (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • e-space (Manchester Metropolitan University) (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (R00-HD057522, R01-DC016607, R01-DC016950)
  • Simons Foundation
  • Simons Center for the Social Brain
  • Brain and Cognitive Sciences Department and the McGovern Institute for Brain Research
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Categorization, perception, and language
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
Keywords
object classification, language and thought, aphasia, anomia, multiple-demand network, cognitive control, language impairment, feature-based classification
MeSH terms
Adult, Aphasia, Brain, Humans, Language

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