Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 290

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Crosslinguistic PET Study of Tone Perception

Gandour, Jack, Wong, Donald, Hsieh, Li, Weinzapfel, Bret, Lancker, Diana Van, Hutchins, Gary D.·2000·Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

Abstract

In studies of pitch processing, a fundamental question is whether shared neural mechanisms at higher cortical levels are engaged for pitch perception of linguistic and nonlinguistic auditory stimuli. Positron emission tomography (PET) was used in a crosslinguistic study to compare pitch processing in native speakers of two tone languages (that is, languages in which variations in pitch patterns are used to distinguish lexical meaning), Chinese and Thai, with those of English, a nontone language. Five subjects from each language group were scanned under three active tasks (tone, pitch, and consonant) that required focused-attention, speeded-response, auditory discrimination judgments, and one passive baseline as silence. Subjects were instructed to judge pitch patterns of Thai lexical tones in the tone condition; pitch patterns of nonspeech stimuli in the pitch condition; syllable-initial consonants in the consonant condition. Analysis was carried out by paired-image subtraction. When comparing the tone to the pitch task, only the Thai group showed significant activation in the left frontal operculum. Activation of the left frontal operculum in the Thai group suggests that phonological processing of suprasegmental as well as segmental units occurs in the vicinity of Broca's area. Baseline subtractions showed significant activation in the anterior insular region for the English and Chinese groups, but not Thai, providing further support for the existence of possibly two parallel, separate pathways projecting from the temporo-parietal to the frontal language area. More generally, these differential patterns of brain activation across language groups and tasks support the view that pitch patterns are processed at higher cortical levels in a top-down manner according to their linguistic function in a particular language.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1162/089892900561841

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 7 references

Cited by

See all 290

Metadata

Authors
Gandour, J., Wong, D., Hsieh, L., Weinzapfel, B., Lancker, D. V., & Hutchins, G. D.
Venue
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
Published
2000-01-01
Volume
12
Issue
1
Pages
207-222
ISSN
  • 0898-929X (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-8898
OpenAlex
W2127306393
Cited by
290
References
7
FWCI
5.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: A Crosslinguistic PET Study of Tone Perception. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1162/089892900561841
The paper
Gandour, J., Wong, D., Hsieh, L., Weinzapfel, B., Lancker, D. V., & Hutchins, G. D. (2000). A Crosslinguistic PET Study of Tone Perception. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.1162/089892900561841

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.