Cited by 58Neurobiology of Language and BilingualismHemispheric Asymmetry in NeuroscienceTactile and Sensory Interactions

Reduced left lateralization of language in congenitally blind individuals

Open access
Lane, Connor, Kanjlia, Shipra, Richardson, Hilary, Fulton, Anne, Omaki, Akira, Bedny, Marina·2017·Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

Abstract

Language processing depends on a left-lateralized network of frontotemporal cortical regions. This network is remarkably consistent across individuals and cultures. However, there is also evidence that developmental factors, such as delayed exposure to language, can modify this network. Recently, it has been found that, in congenitally blind individuals, the typical frontotemporal language network expands to include parts of “visual” cortices. Here, we report that blindness is also associated with reduced left lateralization in frontotemporal language areas. We analyzed fMRI data from two samples of congenitally blind adults (n = 19 and n = 13) and one sample of congenitally blind children (n = 20). Laterality indices were computed for sentence comprehension relative to three different control conditions: solving math equations (Experiment 1), a memory task with nonwords (Experiment 2), and a “does this come next?” task with music (Experiment 3). Across experiments and participant samples, the frontotemporal language network was less left-lateralized in congenitally blind than in sighted individuals. Reduction in left lateralization was not related to Braille reading ability or amount of occipital plasticity. Notably, we observed a positive correlation between the lateralization of frontotemporal cortex and that of language-responsive occipital areas in blind individuals. Blind individuals with right-lateralized language responses in frontotemporal cortices also had right-lateralized occipital responses to language. Together, these results reveal a modified neurobiology of language in blindness. Our findings suggest that, despite its usual consistency across people, the neurobiology of language can be modified by nonlinguistic experiences.

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/jocn_a_01045

Cites

76 of 76 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?

  • Recent studies of language function recovery after stroke, long-term plasticity of language organization in the blind, and a recent review continue to focus on language-network nodes, frontotemporal language areas, and temporal and inferior frontal regions.

    “For instance, a recent study of language function recovery after stroke (Del Gaizo et al., 2017) used Connectome-Dynamics Lesion Symptom Mapping to identify changes to network structure that are caused by lesions and their correlation with language function.”

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: 2

  1. Broca, P. (1861). Remarks on the seat of the faculty of articulated language, following an observation of aphemia (loss of speech). Bulletin de La Société Anatomique, 6, 330-357.
  2. Landau, B., & Gleitman, L. R. (1985). Language and experience: Evidence from the blind child. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lane, C., Kanjlia, S., Richardson, H., Fulton, A., Omaki, A., & Bedny, M.
Affiliations
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
Venue
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
Published
2017-01-01
Volume
29
Issue
1
Pages
65-78
ISSN
  • 0898-929X (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-8898
OpenAlex
W2523213879
Cited by
58
References
76
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4
FWCI
2.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Hemispheric Asymmetry in Neuroscience
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
Keywords
congenital blindness, left lateralization, language processing, sentence comprehension, Braille reading, neuroplasticity, right hemisphere language
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Blindness, Brain, Child, Child, Preschool, Female, Humans, Language, Functional Laterality, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Memory, Middle Aged, Music, Neural Pathways, Neuropsychological Tests, Problem Solving, Mathematical Concepts, Young Adult

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