Cited by 686Neurobiology of Language and BilingualismFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesReading and Literacy Development

New method for fMRI investigations of language: defining ROIs functionally in individual subjects

Open access
Fedorenko, Evelina, Hsieh, Po-Jang, Nieto-Castañón, Alfonso, Whitfield-Gabrieli, Susan, Kanwisher, Nancy·2010·Journal of Neurophysiology

Abstract

Previous neuroimaging research has identified a number of brain regions sensitive to different aspects of linguistic processing, but precise functional characterization of these regions has proven challenging. We hypothesize that clearer functional specificity may emerge if candidate language-sensitive regions are identified functionally within each subject individually, a method that has revealed striking functional specificity in visual cortex but that has rarely been applied to neuroimaging studies of language. This method enables pooling of data from corresponding functional regions across subjects rather than from corresponding locations in stereotaxic space (which may differ functionally because of the anatomical variability across subjects). However, it is far from obvious a priori that this method will work as it requires that multiple stringent conditions be met. Specifically, candidate language-sensitive brain regions must be identifiable functionally within individual subjects in a short scan, must be replicable within subjects and have clear correspondence across subjects, and must manifest key signatures of language processing (e.g., a higher response to sentences than nonword strings, whether visual or auditory). We show here that this method does indeed work: we identify 13 candidate language-sensitive regions that meet these criteria, each present in ≥80% of subjects individually. The selectivity of these regions is stronger using our method than when standard group analyses are conducted on the same data, suggesting that the future application of this method may reveal clearer functional specificity than has been evident in prior neuroimaging research on language.

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 · 10.1152/jn.00032.2010

Cites

93 of 93 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?

  • Because of a constrained search volume, fROI analyses typically have higher statistical power than whole-brain analyses.

    “In addition, because of a constrained search volume, fROI analyses typically have higher statistical power than whole-brain analyses (Fedorenko, Hsieh, Nieto-Castañón, Whitfield-Gabrieli, & Kanwisher, 2010;Saxe, Brett, & Kanwisher, 2006).”

    From Functional Specificity and Sex Differences in the Neural Circuits Supporting the Inhibition of Automatic Imitation (2018) · cites this paper as Fedorenko, Hsieh, Nieto-Castañón, Whitfield-Gabrieli, & Kanwisher, 2010

  • The language network supports both comprehension (spoken, written, and signed) and production.

    “This language network supports both comprehension (spoken, written, and signed) [30, 31, 32, 33] and production [34, 35]”

    From Dissociating language and thought in large language models (2024) · cites this paper as [31]

  • The human language network is sensitive to abstract hierarchical rules across isolated phrases, naturalistic narratives, and syntactically well-formed but semantically empty stimuli.

    “it is sensitive to abstract hierarchical rules in isolated phrases and sentences [31, 108, 109, 110], in naturalistic narratives [111, 112, 113, 114], and in syntactically well-formed but semantically empty (”

    From Dissociating language and thought in large language models (2024) · cites this paper as [31]

  • The language localizer was previously shown to robustly and reliably identify each of the key brain regions previously implicated in high-level linguistic processing in at least 80% of subjects individually.

    “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”

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: 9

  1. Brodmann K. Vergleichende Lokalisationslehre der Groβhirnrinde. Leipzig: Barth, 1909 [Google Scholar]
  2. Coltheart M, Caramazza A. Cognitive Neuropsychology Twenty Years on Macquarie Monographs in Cognitive Science. London, UK: Psychology, 2006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Fiez JA. Phonology, semantics, and the role of the left inferior prefrontal cortex. Hum Brain Mapp 5: 79–83, 1997 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Meyer Un Algorithme Optimal Pour La Ligne De Partage Des Eaux. 8me Congrès de Reconnaissance des Formes et Intelligence Artificielle, Lyon, France, 1991 [Google Scholar]
  5. Nieto-Castañón A, Fedorenko E, Kanwisher N. Subject-Specific Functional Localizers Increase Sensitivity and Selectivity, 2010 [Google Scholar]
  6. Schlosser MJ, Aoyagi N, Fulbright RK, Gore JC, McCarthy G. Functional MRI studies of auditory comprehension. Hum Brain Mapp 6: 1–13, 1998 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Thompson-Schill SL. Dissecting the language organ: a new look at the role of Broca's area in language processing. Twenty-First Century Psycholinguistics: Four Cornerstones, 173–189, 2005 [Google Scholar]
  8. Van Petten C, Kutas M. Interactions between sentence context and word frequency in event-related brain potentials. Mem Cogn 18: 380–393, 1990 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Zilles K, Schleicher A, Langemann C, Amunts K, Morosan P, Palomero-Gallagher N, et al. Quantitative analysis of sulci in the human cerebral cortex: Development, regional heterogeneity, gender difference, asymmetry, intersubject variability and cortical architecture. Hum Brain Mapp 5: 218–221, 1997 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fedorenko, E., Hsieh, P.-J., Nieto-Castañón, A., Whitfield-Gabrieli, S., & Kanwisher, N.
Affiliations
  • McGovern Institute for Brain Research (US)
  • McGovern Institute for Brain Research, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Corresponding author
Fedorenko, Evelina
Venue
Journal of Neurophysiology
Published
2010-08
Volume
104
Issue
2
Pages
1177-1194
ISSN
  • 0022-3077 (ISSN-L)
  • 1522-1598
OpenAlex
W2155034734
Cited by
686
References
93
Citations by year
2026: 66 · 2025: 90 · 2024: 86 · 2023: 68 · 2022: 48 · 2021: 56 · 2020: 44 · 2019: 45 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 29 · 2016: 30 · 2015: 23 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 18
FWCI
9.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neurophysiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5k99hd057522-02)
  • 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
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
Keywords
language processing, functional MRI, region of interest selection, anatomical variation, sentence processing, visual cortex, functional specificity
MeSH terms
Brain, Brain Mapping, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Language, Functional Laterality, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Neuropsychological Tests, Oxygen, Photic Stimulation, Reaction Time, Reading, Time Factors, Reproducibility of Results

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