Cited by 52Neurobiology of Language and BilingualismLanguage Development and DisordersReading and Literacy Development

Selective Interference with Syntactic Encoding during Sentence Production by Direct Electrocortical Stimulation of the Inferior Frontal Gyrus

Open access
Chang, Edward F., Kurteff, Garret, Wilson, Stephen M.·2018·Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

Abstract

Cortical stimulation mapping (CSM) has provided important insights into the neuroanatomy of language because of its high spatial and temporal resolution, and the causal relationships that can be inferred from transient disruption of specific functions. Almost all CSM studies to date have focused on word-level processes such as naming, comprehension, and repetition. In this study, we used CSM to identify sites where stimulation interfered selectively with syntactic encoding during sentence production. Fourteen patients undergoing left-hemisphere neurosurgery participated in the study. In 7 of the 14 patients, we identified nine sites where cortical stimulation interfered with syntactic encoding but did not interfere with single word processing. All nine sites were localized to the inferior frontal gyrus, mostly to the pars triangularis and opercularis. Interference with syntactic encoding took several different forms, including misassignment of arguments to grammatical roles, misassignment of nouns to verb slots, omission of function words and inflectional morphology, and various paragrammatic constructions. Our findings suggest that the left inferior frontal gyrus plays an important role in the encoding of syntactic structure during sentence production.

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_01215

Cites

51 of 51 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?

  • Converging evidence suggests Broca's area may not have a critical role in speech articulation but may instead be involved in word retrieval and grammar.

    “Converging evidence suggests that Broca’s area, although classically posited as critical for speech production, may not have a critical role in speech articulation15,69,70 but may instead be involved in word retrieval and grammar71,72, although this is an active research area71.”

    From The speech neuroprosthesis (2024) · cites this paper as [72]

    The Results and Discussion (pages unavailable in our copy) support a role for the left inferior frontal gyrus, including Broca’s area, in syntactic encoding and grammar. They do not establish a role in word retrieval; the study distinguished its syntactic-encoding sites from sites that disrupted picture naming. The articulation clause has separate citations and is not assessed here. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chang, E. F., Kurteff, G., & Wilson, S. M.
Affiliations
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
  • Vanderbilt University Medical Center (US)
Venue
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
Publisher
MIT Press
Published
2018-03
Volume
30
Issue
3
Pages
411-420
ISSN
  • 0898-929X (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-8898
OpenAlex
W2771252713
Cited by
52
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1
FWCI
1.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute
  • National Institutes of Health (5r00ns065120-04)
  • National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (R21DC016080, R01DC012379, R01DC013270)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (K99NS065120, U01NS098971, R00-NS065120)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
Keywords
syntactic encoding, sentence production, inferior frontal gyrus, pars triangularis, pars opercularis, left hemisphere language
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Brain Mapping, Craniotomy, Electric Stimulation, Female, Humans, Linguistics, Male, Middle Aged, Speech, Visual Perception, Prefrontal Cortex, Young Adult, Intraoperative Neurophysiological Monitoring

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