The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Shared Syntax in Language Production and Language Comprehension--An fMRI Study
Open accessAbstract
During speaking and listening syntactic processing is a crucial step. It involves specifying syntactic relations between words in a sentence. If the production and comprehension modality share the neuronal substrate for syntactic processing then processing syntax in one modality should lead to adaptation effects in the other modality. In the present functional magnetic resonance imaging experiment, participants either overtly produced or heard descriptions of pictures. We looked for brain regions showing adaptation effects to the repetition of syntactic structures. In order to ensure that not just the same brain regions but also the same neuronal populations within these regions are involved in syntactic processing in speaking and listening, we compared syntactic adaptation effects within processing modalities (syntactic production-to-production and comprehension-to-comprehension priming) with syntactic adaptation effects between processing modalities (syntactic comprehension-to-production and production-to-comprehension priming). We found syntactic adaptation effects in left inferior frontal gyrus (Brodmann's area [BA] 45), left middle temporal gyrus (BA 21), and bilateral supplementary motor area (BA 6) which were equally strong within and between processing modalities. Thus, syntactic repetition facilitates syntactic processing in the brain within and across processing modalities to the same extent. We conclude that that the same neurobiological system seems to subserve syntactic processing in speaking and listening.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue.
Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2004) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x04000056 · Cited by 2,678
Repetition and the brain: neural models of stimulus-specific effects
Grill-Spector, K., Henson, R., & Martin, A. (2006) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2005.11.006 · Cited by 2,256
Syntactic persistence in language production
Bock, J. K. (1986) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/0010-0285(86)90004-6 · Cited by 1,911
On Broca, brain, and binding: A new framework
Hagoort, P. (2005) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2005.07.004 · Cited by 1,411
Structural priming: A critical review.
Pickering, M. J., & Ferreira, V. S. (2008) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.134.3.427 · Cited by 1,047 · cited 1×
“For the 2 utterances ‘‘The boy kissed the girl’’ and ‘‘The boy was kissed by the girl,’’ the words ‘boy,’ ‘kissed,’ and ‘girl’ hit the ear of the listener in the same order, but the syntactic structure and the message of the utterance are different.”
The role of the supplementary motor area (SMA) in word production
Alario, F.-X., Chainay, H., Lehericy, S., & Cohen, L. (2006) · Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2005.11.104 · Cited by 377
The functions of structural priming
Ferreira, V. S., & Bock, K. (2006) · Language and Cognitive Processes · doi:10.1080/01690960600824609 · Cited by 266
Cited by
An integrated theory of language production and comprehension
Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2013) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x12001495 · Cited by 1,569
Predicting while comprehending language: A theory and review.
Pickering, M. J., & Gambi, C. (2018) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000158 · Cited by 518
Coupled neural systems underlie the production and comprehension of naturalistic narrative speech
Silbert, L. J., Honey, C. J., Simony, E., Poeppel, D., & Hasson, U. (2014) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1323812111 · Cited by 352
Lack of selectivity for syntax relative to word meanings throughout the language network
Fedorenko, E., Blank, I. A., Siegelman, M., & Mineroff, Z. (2020) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104348 · Cited by 170
Retraining speech production and fluency in non-fluent/agrammatic primary progressive aphasia
Henry, M. L., Hubbard, H. I., Grasso, S. M., Mandelli, M. L., Wilson, S. M., Sathishkumar, M. T., Fridriksson, J., Daigle, W., Boxer, A. L., Miller, B. L., et al. (2018) · Brain · doi:10.1093/brain/awy101 · Cited by 127
Metadata
- Authors
- Segaert, K., Menenti, L., Weber, K., Petersson, K. M., & Hagoort, P.
- Venue
- Cerebral Cortex
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2011-09-20
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1662-1670
- ISSN
- 1047-3211 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2199
- OpenAlex
- W2159203203
- Cited by
- 211
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 5.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Shared Syntax in Language Production and Language Comprehension--An fMRI Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/cercor/bhr249
- The paper
- Segaert, K., Menenti, L., Weber, K., Petersson, K. M., & Hagoort, P. (2012). Shared Syntax in Language Production and Language Comprehension--An fMRI Study. Cerebral Cortex. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhr249
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.