Cited by 49

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Structural Connectivity Underpinning Language Aptitude, Working Memory, and IQ in the Perisylvian Language Network

Xiang, Huadong, Dediu, Dan, Roberts, Leah, Oort, Erik van, Norris, David G., Hagoort, Peter·2012·Language Learning

Abstract

In this article, we report the results of a study on the relationship between individual differences in language learning aptitude and the structural connectivity of language pathways in the adult brain, the first of its kind. We measured four components of language aptitude (vocabulary learning; sound recognition; sound‐symbol correspondence; and grammatical inferencing) using the LLAMA language aptitude test. Spatial working memory, verbal working memory and IQ were also measured as control factors. Diffusion Tensor Imaging was employed to investigate the structural connectivity of language pathways in the perisylvian language network. Regression analysis suggested significant correlations between most of these behavioural measures and the structural connectivity of certain language pathways, that is, grammatical inferencing and the BA45‐ and BA46‐Temporal pathway, sound‐symbol correspondence and the interhemispheric BA45 pathway, vocabulary learning and the BA47‐Parietal pathway, IQ and the BA44‐ and BA‐47Parietal pathways, the BA47‐Temporal pathway and interhemispheric BA45 pathway, spatial working memory and the interhemispheric BA6 pathway and the BA47‐Parietal pathway, and verbal working memory and the BA47‐Temporal pathway. These findings provide further insights into the neural underpinnings of the variation in language aptitude of human adults and are discussed in relation to relevant findings in the literature.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00708.x

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Neurobiological perspectives have produced the most compelling evidence for the critical role of phonological working memory in essential aspects of L2 learning, including phonology, vocabulary, and grammar/sequence rules.

    “the neurobiological perspectives (such as those studies conducted by Golestani and Yang) have produced the most compelling evidence for the critical role of phonological working memory in essential aspects of L2 learning, including phonology, vocabulary, and grammar/sequence rules”

    From Foreign language aptitude theory: Yesterday, today and tomorrow (2017) · cites this paper as Xiang et al. 2012

  • Aptitude could be linked to neurolinguistic research on brain connectivity networks.

    “Aptitude could be linked to this research (Schumann 2004;Carpenter 2008;Xiang et al. 2012).”

    From Foreign language aptitude theory: Yesterday, today and tomorrow (2017) · cites this paper as Xiang et al. 2012

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 39

  1. 10.1002/mrm.1105 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1006/jmrb.1996.0086 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 10.1002/mrm.10609 · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.09.018 · DOI · Paper page
  5. 10.1093/brain/awp206 · DOI
  6. 10.1146/annurev.neuro.25.112701.142946 · DOI · Paper page
  7. 10.1016/j.cortex.2008.05.004 · DOI · Paper page
  8. 10.1073/pnas.0702116104 · DOI · Paper page
  9. 10.1002/hbm.10130 · DOI
  10. 10.1016/S0926-6410(98)00004-4 · DOI
  11. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.04.249 · DOI
  12. 10.1016/j.tics.2009.01.001 · DOI
  13. 10.1016/j.tics.2005.07.004 · DOI · Paper page
  14. 10.1177/0013164406288169 · DOI
  15. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.07.053 · DOI
  16. 10.1017/S0140525X07001185 · DOI
  17. 10.1002/jmri.1076 · DOI · Paper page
  18. 10.1002/hbm.20779 · DOI
  19. 10.1177/0023830910388000 · DOI
  20. 10.1007/s00429-008-0199-8 · DOI
  21. 10.1093/cercor/bhh186 · DOI · Paper page
  22. 10.1038/431757a · DOI · Paper page
  23. Meara P., 2005, Llama Language Aptitude Tests. The manual
  24. 10.1038/nn1077 · DOI
  25. 10.1006/nimg.1999.0441 · DOI · Paper page
  26. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4442-06.2007 · DOI
  27. 10.1007/s00429-009-0211-y · DOI
  28. 10.1109/TVCG.2008.128 · DOI
  29. 10.1002/bies.20641 · DOI
  30. 10.1073/pnas.95.20.12061 · DOI
  31. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.03.057 · DOI · Paper page
  32. 10.1006/nimg.2001.0978 · DOI · Paper page
  33. 10.1027/1015-5759.24.1.35 · DOI
  34. Wechsler D., 1997, Wechsler memory scale–Third edition
  35. 10.1080/87565641.2010.508551 · DOI
  36. 10.1093/cercor/bhp119 · DOI
  37. Xiang H. D., L2‐proficiency‐dependent laterality of structural connectivity on brain language pathways, Brain and Language
  38. Yu A. C. L., 2010, Perceptual compensation is correlated with individuals’“autistic” traits: Implications for models of sound change, PLoS One, 5
  39. 10.1016/j.ajhg.2009.10.004 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Xiang, H., Dediu, D., Roberts, L., Oort, E. V., Norris, D. G., & Hagoort, P.
Venue
Language Learning
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-08-16
Volume
62
Issue
s2
Pages
110-130
ISSN
  • 0023-8333
  • 1467-9922
Cited by
49
References
3
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