Cited by 329Neurobiology of Language and BilingualismLanguage Development and DisordersSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation

Effects of syntactic structure and propositional number on patterns of regional cerebral blood flow

Caplan, David, Alpert, Nathaniel, Waters, Gloria·1998·Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

Abstract

Positron emission tomography (PET) was used to determine regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF) as a function of the syntactic form and propositional density of sentences. rCBF increased in the left pars opercularis, part of Broca's area, when subjects processed syntactically more complex sentences. There were no differences in rCBF in the perisylvian association cortex traditionally associated with language processing when subjects made plausibility judgments about sentences with two propositions as compared to sentences with one proposition, but rCBF increased in infero-posterior brain regions. These results suggest that there is a specialization of neural tissue in Broca's area for constructing aspects of the syntactic form of sentences to determine sentence meaning. They also suggest that this specialization is separate from the brain systems that are involved in utilizing the meaning of a sentence that has been understood to accomplish a task.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1162/089892998562843

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • Broca's area (BA 44 and sometimes BA 45) is important for syntactic processing, even when articulation is suppressed.

    “There was continued emphasis on the importance of Broca's area (BA 44 and sometimes BA 45) for syntactic processing (Caplan et al., 1998,1999; Inui et al., 1998; Kang et al., 1999; Moro et al., 2001; Nakai et al., 1999; Ni et al., 2000) even when articulation was suppressed (Caplan et al., 2000).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Caplan, D., Alpert, N., & Waters, G.
Affiliations
  • Massachusetts General Hospital (US)
  • Boston University (US)
Venue
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
Publisher
MIT Press
Published
1998-07-01
Volume
10
Issue
4
Pages
541-552
ISSN
  • 0898-929X (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-8898
OpenAlex
W2125649795
Cited by
327
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 18
FWCI
8.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (DC02146, R01DC002146)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Keywords
syntactic complexity, regional cerebral blood flow, Broca's area, sentence processing, language processing, sentence meaning
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Cerebrovascular Circulation, Conditioning, Psychological, Female, Frontal Lobe, Humans, Language, Male, Tomography, Emission-Computed

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