The DOI matches its Crossref record; 85 of the 85 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 42 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality
Open accessAbstract
An integral part of human language is the capacity to extract meaning from spoken and written words, but the precise relationship between brain representations of information perceived by listening versus reading is unclear. Prior neuroimaging studies have shown that semantic information in spoken language is represented in multiple regions in the human cerebral cortex, while amodal semantic information appears to be represented in a few broad brain regions. However, previous studies were too insensitive to determine whether semantic representations were shared at a fine level of detail rather than merely at a coarse scale. We used fMRI to record brain activity in two separate experiments while participants listened to or read several hours of the same narrative stories, and then created voxelwise encoding models to characterize semantic selectivity in each voxel and in each individual participant. We find that semantic tuning during listening and reading are highly correlated in most semantically selective regions of cortex, and models estimated using one modality accurately predict voxel responses in the other modality. These results suggest that the representation of language semantics is independent of the sensory modality through which the semantic information is received. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Humans can comprehend the meaning of words from both spoken and written language. It is therefore important to understand the relationship between the brain representations of spoken or written text. Here, we show that although the representation of semantic information in the human brain is quite complex, the semantic representations evoked by listening versus reading are almost identical. These results suggest that the representation of language semantics is independent of the sensory modality through which the semantic information is received.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
Using fMRI and voxelwise encoding models, the authors compared semantic selectivity while the same participants listened to or read the same narrative stories. They found that semantic tuning is highly correlated across modalities in most semantically selective cortex, and models fit in one modality accurately predict responses in the other.
Key findings
- Semantic model prediction was broadly distributed across lateral temporal, ventral temporal, lateral parietal, medial parietal, and prefrontal cortices in both listening and reading, with maximum MNI-space prediction accuracy of 0.27 ± 0.03 for listening and 0.28 ± 0.03 for reading.
- Listening and reading semantic principal component projections were significantly correlated for at least the first five semantic PCs; correlations weakened after the sixth PC but remained above chance until the seventh.
- Voxelwise semantic model weights estimated during listening and reading were strongly correlated in many bilateral temporal, parietal, and prefrontal regions, especially for voxels semantically selective in both modalities.
- Cross-modal prediction was accurate throughout most of the semantic system: models fit to listening predicted reading responses, and models fit to reading predicted listening responses, while sensory-cortex voxels were not well predicted cross-modally.
Methods
- Nine participants (six male, three female) listened to and read more than two hours of narrative stories from The Moth Radio Hour; reading used rapid serial visual presentation with each word timed to match its spoken duration.
- fMRI BOLD responses were modeled voxelwise with banded ridge regression using a 985-dimensional word co-occurrence semantic feature space plus nuisance regressors (motion-energy, spectral, phoneme, letter, word rate, syntax, etc.), with FIR hemodynamic modeling and cross-validated regularization.
- Model performance was assessed on a held-out story using Pearson correlation, permutation tests with 10,000 iterations, and FDR correction; cross-modality prediction used weights from one modality to predict responses in the other.
Limitations
- The paper states that its semantic feature space is only one possible representation of semantics and may miss long-timescale conceptual knowledge, metaphors, humor, sarcasm, and narrative information, which could have modality-specific representations.
- The paper notes that RSVP reading differs from natural reading because readers cannot control which word to read at each point in time, though timing was matched to listening.
- The paper also notes that within-modality data were collected largely within sessions while between-modality data were collected across sessions, so within-modality prediction accuracy is likely somewhat higher for that reason alone; an evident additional limitation is the small sample of nine participants, two of whom were authors.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
40 Own result · 23 Not checked yet · 18 Own interpretation · 17 Own method · 8 No basis given
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“models estimated using one modality accurately predict voxel responses in the other modality”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We find that semantic tuning during listening and reading are highly correlated in most semantically selective regions of cortex”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Outside the semantic system, some voxels on the border to visual cortex and voxels surrounding the temporal parietal junction are well predicted within modality but not across modality (orange voxels in Fig. 9).”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Can a voxelwise model fit to one modality predict responses to the other modality?
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Specifically, we show amodal semantic representation in bilateral precuneus, temporal parietal junction (TPJ), angular gyrus (AG), anterior to posterior STS, sPMv, Broca's area and inferior frontal gyrus (IFG).”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Semantic tuning is more similar for voxels that are semantically selective in both modalities (red) than for those that are well predicted in one modality only (blue or green).”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Is semantic tuning consistent across modalities at the single-voxel level?
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our study shows that semantically amodal voxels are bilaterally distributed across many regions of the temporal, parietal and prefrontal cortices (Figs. 3, 4, 5, 6).”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Most of the voxels in the semantic system are significantly predicted by all participants in both modalities.”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
“Most of the voxels in the semantic system are significantly predicted by all participants in both modalities.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Model estimation and evaluation
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Overall, the semantic model accurately predicts activity in most of the semantic system independent of the presentation modality.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Does the cortical distribution of semantically selective voxels depend on stimulus modality?
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Voxels that are not well predicted cross-modally are located in sensory cortices.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Can a voxelwise model fit to one modality predict responses to the other modality?
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Most voxels that are well predicted within and across modality are located in the semantic system (white voxels in Fig. 9).”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Can a voxelwise model fit to one modality predict responses to the other modality?
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These voxels are also significantly well predicted by the semantic model in both modalities.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Is semantic tuning consistent across modalities at the single-voxel level?
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This system extends across much of lateral temporal cortex (LTC), ventral temporal cortex (VTC), lateral parietal cortex (LPC), medial parietal cortex (MPC), medial PFC, superior PFC, and inferior PFC.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Does the cortical distribution of semantically selective voxels depend on stimulus modality?
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In both cases, voxels in bilateral temporal, parietal, and prefrontal cortices are well predicted across modalities.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Can a voxelwise model fit to one modality predict responses to the other modality?
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Across all participants the estimated semantic model weights in the listening modality accurately predict BOLD responses in many brain regions in the semantic system, including LTC, VTC, LPC, MPC, and PFC.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Model estimation and evaluation
hedgedcorrelationaln = 9- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Across all participants, estimated semantic model weights in the reading modality accurately predict BOLD responses in the semantic system.”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
“Across all participants, estimated semantic model weights in the reading modality accurately predict BOLD responses in the semantic system.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Model estimation and evaluation
plaincorrelationaln = 9- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Inspection of the listening and reading semantic maps shown in Figure 4 reveals that the semantic representations in both modalities are very similar.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Does the representation of semantic information vary with sensory modality?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Most voxels are approximately equally well predicted in both modalities.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Does the cortical distribution of semantically selective voxels depend on stimulus modality?
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In our study, we focused solely on semantic representations and our results suggest that semantic representations do not differ between listening and reading in left DLPFC.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Discussion
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Inspection of Figure 5 reveals that the first five semantic PC projections are significantly correlated between listening and reading modalities.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Does the representation of semantic information vary with sensory modality?
plaincorrelationaln = 9- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Voxels whose model weights are not correlated are located in few scattered voxels in the bilateral sensory cortex, intraparietal sulcus, and in PFC (white voxels).”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Is semantic tuning consistent across modalities at the single-voxel level?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These results show that our semantic model predicts brain activity within the semantic system in all participants.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Does the cortical distribution of semantically selective voxels depend on stimulus modality?
plaincorrelationaln = 9- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Figure 2b shows that when participants read natural stories this network of brain regions are similarly well predicted by the semantic model.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Does the cortical distribution of semantically selective voxels depend on stimulus modality?
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In sum, we demonstrate modality-independent semantic selectivity in most of the bilateral semantic system.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Discussion
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Across all participants the estimated semantic model weights in the listening modality accurately predict BOLD responses in many brain regions in the semantic system, including LTC, VTC, LPC, MPC, and PFC.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Discussion
hedgedcorrelationaln = 9- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Comparison of panels a and b reveals that semantically selective voxels are tuned for similar semantic concepts during both listening and reading.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Discussion
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The semantic model estimated in reading accurately predicts voxel responses in listening within the semantic system including bilateral temporal (LTC, VTC), parietal (LPC, MPC), and prefrontal cortices (PFC).”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, our results reveal that modality invariant semantic representations are not isolated in a few left-lateralized regions, but are instead present in many bilaterally distributed regions of the semantic system.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At least the first five semantic PC projections are significantly correlated between listening and reading.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In contrast, voxels in the early sensory regions such as the primary AC and early visual cortex are not well predicted.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The semantic model estimated in listening accurately predicts voxel responses in reading within the semantic system including bilateral temporal (LTC, VTC), parietal (LPC, MPC), and prefrontal cortices (PFC).”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Estimated semantic model weights accurately predict BOLD responses in many brain regions in the semantic system, including LTC, VTC, LPC, MPC, and PFC in both modalities.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Discussion
hedgedcorrelationalSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Semantic tuning is more similar for voxels that are semantically selective in both modalities (red) than for those that are selective in one modality only (blue and green).”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Voxels in the semantic system have similar semantic tuning across all the semantic features.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Discussion
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Indeed, projecting our results into a standard brain space and averaging across individuals reduces prediction performance within modality across much of the brain (cf.Figs.3a, 2).”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Most voxels are equally well predicted in listening and reading indicating that these voxels represent semantic information independent of the presentation modality.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Discussion
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This suggests that the human brain represents semantic information in an amodal form that is independent of input modality”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Vigneau et al., 2006
- Not checked yetcites Binder et al., 2009
- Not checked yetcites Price, 2010
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“listeners and readers appear to extract very similar information about the meaning of a narrative story”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Rubin et al., 2000
- Not checked yetcites Diakidoy et al., 2005
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These results suggest that the representation of language semantics is independent of the sensory modality through which the semantic information is received.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Abstract
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“There is evidence that several cortical regions are activated during both listening and reading”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Price, 2010
- Not checked yetcites Price, 2012
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Together, these results indicate that the cortical representation of semantic information is consistent across input modalities.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Does the representation of semantic information vary with sensory modality?
hedgedn = 9- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Most of these studies used tightly controlled stimuli, such as a set of single isolated words, sentences or curated passages, and an explicit lexical semantic task”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Chee et al., 1999
- Not checked yetcites Michael et al., 2001
- Not checked yetcites Buchweitz et al., 2009
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This suggests that voxels that are semantically selective in listening and reading modalities (red) represent similar semantic information.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Is semantic tuning consistent across modalities at the single-voxel level?
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In sum, the evidence available currently is insufficient to determine whether semantic information obtained during listening and reading are represented in the same way.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Introduction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Most imaging studies of the semantic system have examined only one input modality, either spoken or written words”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites De ´monet et al., 1994
- Not checked yetcites Vandenberghe et al., 1996
- Not checked yetcites Scott et al., 2000
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“That study recovered a low-dimensional semantic subspace from an aggregated set of estimated semantic model weights using principal components analysis.”
- Also stated in: § Does the representation of semantic information vary with sensory modality? · plain
“This semantic subspace was created by applying principal component analysis to an aggregated set of estimated semantic model weights from seven participants included in a previous study from our laboratory (Huth et al., 2016).”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Semantic PC projections
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Huth et al., 2016
plainn = 7- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Does the representation of semantic information vary with sensory modality? · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This result demonstrates that the distribution of semantically selective voxels in most of the semantic system is independent of the modality.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Can a voxelwise model fit to one modality predict responses to the other modality?
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In general, individual voxels located within the semantic system are selective to similar semantic features during both listening and reading.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Is semantic tuning consistent across modalities at the single-voxel level?
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The similarity between the listening and reading semantic maps indicate that individual voxels within the semantic system are tuned for the same semantic concepts regardless of presentation modality.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Does the representation of semantic information vary with sensory modality?
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our results demonstrate in a single study that semantically amodal voxels span most of the bilateral semantic system.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Discussion
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, to date no study has performed this crucial comparison.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Introduction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, within-modality prediction accuracy is likely to be somewhat higher than between-modality accuracy for this reason alone.)”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Can a voxelwise model fit to one modality predict responses to the other modality?
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our experiments provide three lines of evidence in support of the hypothesis that semantic representations throughout most of the semantic system are invariant to presentation modality.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, previous studies were too coarse grained to determine whether listening and reading shared semantic representations at the level of a single voxel.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Introduction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This suggests that across the 985 semantic features semantic information is represented similarly in both modalities in the semantic system.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Discussion
hedgedSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“However, the most likely reason that the Liuzzi et al. (2017) study only identified one region as semantically amodal is that single word presentations elicit little brain activity.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Liuzzi et al., 2017
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Hence, differences in signal-to-noise ratio can account for fewer number of amodal regions identified in previous cross-modality studies that use single words or short sentences.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In contrast, most previous neuroimaging studies of language perform comparisons at the group level after transforming individual participant data into a standardized brain space (e.g., MNI or Talairach space).”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“However, the anatomical normalization procedures used in these studies tend to smooth and mask the substantial individual variability in language processing (Caramazza, 1986;Steinmetz and Seitz, 1991;Fedorenko and Kanwisher, 2009).”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Caramazza, 1986
- Not checked yetcites Steinmetz and Seitz, 1991
- Not checked yetcites Fedorenko and Kanwisher, 2009 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This suggests that voxels that are well predicted in both modalities represent similar semantic information.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Discussion
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Voxels within the semantic system represent semantic information independent of modality.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Most voxels are equally well predicted in listening and reading indicating that these voxels represent semantic information independent of the presentation modality.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Discussion
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our findings are consistent with the view that sensory regions process unimodal information related to low-level processing of spoken or written language, whereas high-level regions process modality invariant semantic information.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Discussion
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our naturalistic experiment and VM provides a powerful and efficient method for identifying amodal representations in individual human brains.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Discussion
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This shows that the individual dimensions of the semantic maps in Figure4where the first three semantic PCs are displayed are similar across the two modalities.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our findings are consistent with the view that sensory regions process unimodal information related to low-level processing of spoken or written language, whereas high-level regions process modality invariant semantic information.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Discussion
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Third, the present study is the first that reveals the amodal representation of semantic information during listening and reading in single participants (Fig. 1).”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 13
- Probably not a substantial claim. 32
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Correlations of the sixth PC projection and beyond are relatively weaker, but remain above chance level until the seventh PC projection.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Does the representation of semantic information vary with sensory modality?
plaincorrelationaln = 9- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“(maximum prediction accuracy across all MNI voxels for listening 0.27 Ϯ 0.03, maximum prediction accuracy across all MNI voxels for reading: 0.28 Ϯ 0.03)”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Does the cortical distribution of semantically selective voxels depend on stimulus modality?
plainn = 9- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Figure 2a shows that our semantic model predicts brain activity in a broadly distributed semantic system when participants listen to natural stories, replicating our previous study (Huth et al., 2016).”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Does the cortical distribution of semantically selective voxels depend on stimulus modality?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Huth et al., 2016
plaincorrelationalSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“One striking difference between our results and those reported in earlier studies is that we find a large network of semantically selective regions that are independent of the presentation modality, whereas previous studies reported a few amodal semantic regions located mostly in the left hemisphere (Petersen et al., 1989;Chee et al., 1999;Jobard et al., 2007;Buchweitz et al., 2009;Liuzzi et al.,”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Petersen et al., 1989
- Not checked yetcites Chee et al., 1999
- Not checked yetcites Liuzzi et al., 2017
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Negatively correlated voxels are mostly in sensory regions and are not well predicted by the semantic model in either modality.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Is semantic tuning consistent across modalities at the single-voxel level?
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, due to averaging across participants voxel prediction accuracies are lower than in individual participant results”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Does the cortical distribution of semantically selective voxels depend on stimulus modality?
plaindirectn = 9- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Prior neuroimaging studies have shown that semantic information in spoken language is represented in multiple regions in the human cerebral cortex”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Abstract
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the demonstration of some common activation during listening and reading is necessary but not sufficient evidence of a common amodal semantic representation.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Introduction
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“while amodal semantic information appears to be represented in a few broad brain regions”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Abstract
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Although the early sensory processing pathways for listening and reading are distinct”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Rubin et al., 2000
- Not checked yetcites Diakidoy et al., 2005
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, previous studies were too insensitive to determine whether semantic representations were shared at a fine level of detail rather than merely at a coarse scale.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Listening and reading presentations were counterbalanced across participants.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Participants
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“This model was selected based on an earlier study showing that it outperforms other low level acoustical models”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Spectral model construction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites de Heer et al., 2017
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The eye tracker was calibrated before the first run of data acquisition.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Natural reading stimuli
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Banded ridge regression assigns a different regularization parameter for every feature space and so reduces bias caused by correlations between feature spaces.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Voxelwise model fitting
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Nunez-Elizalde et al., 2019
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The motion-energy, spectral, word rate, phoneme rate, phonemes, letter rate, letters, and word length variation features were used to explain away low-level parameters that might otherwise contaminate the semantic model weights.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Feature spaces
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The regularization parameter for each feature space was estimated empirically via cross-validation on a held-out set.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Banded ridge regression
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Most of these cross-modality studies observed activity in left lateralized regions such as the left anterior temporal lobe, left superior temporal sulcus (STS), left middle temporal gyrus (MTG), and left inferior frontal gyrus (IFG).”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Chee et al., 1999
- Not checked yetcites Michael et al., 2001
- Not checked yetcites Buchweitz et al., 2009
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Banded ridge regression is a special case of the well-established statistical approach called Tikhonov regression”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Banded ridge regression
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Tikhonov and Arsenin, 1977
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the stories were performed by different speakers and were not uniformly mastered, so some differences in total loudness remain.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Natural speech stimuli
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Statistical significance was computed by a permutation test with 10,000 iterations and comparing estimated correlations to the empirical null distribution of correlations for each participant and modality separately.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Model estimation and evaluation
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To find out whether the semantic projections could be correlated by chance, a permutation test with 10,000 iterations was performed for each individual participant separately.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Correlating the semantic principal components
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Statistical significance was defined as any correlation coefficient that exceeded 95% of all of the permuted correlations.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Correlating the semantic principal components
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The corrected aligned transcript was then spot-checked for accuracy by a different listener.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Story transcription and preprocessing
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The regularization parameter is optimized based on prediction accuracy on a held-out dataset.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Banded ridge regression
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“(Note, however, that within-modality data were collected largely within sessions, and between-modality data were collected across sessions.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Can a voxelwise model fit to one modality predict responses to the other modality?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Before surface reconstruction, anatomical surface segmentations were carefully handchecked and corrected using Blender software and pycortex”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Cortical surface reconstruction and visualization
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These automatic alignments were manually checked and adjusted as necessary to improve accuracy.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Stimulus down-sampling
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, to make listening and reading more comparable we matched the timing of the words presented during RSVP to the rate at which the words occurred during listening.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Natural reading stimuli
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Rests on an assumption: RSVP reading differs from natural reading in that the reader has no control over which word to read at each point in time.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Each story was manually transcribed by one listener, and this transcription was checked by a second listener.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Story transcription and preprocessing
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Relatively few have studied cross-modal representations by presenting the same stimuli in both modalities”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Petersen et al., 1989
- Not checked yetcites Chee et al., 1999
- Not checked yetcites Michael et al., 2001
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Two of the participants were authors on the paper (A.G.H. and A.O.N.-E.).”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Participants
plainn = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Resulting p-values were corrected for multiple comparisons within each participant using the false discovery rate (FDR) procedure (Benjamini and Hochberg, 1995).”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Model estimation and evaluation
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Benjamini and Hochberg, 1995
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“However, that study did not model semantic information, but only showed that voxel activations in these regions tend to be correlated across these two modalities.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Regev et al., 2013
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To validate the voxelwise models, estimated model weights were used to predict responses to a validation story that was not used for model estimation.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Model estimation and evaluation
plainn = 9- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Previous studies have shown that complex linguistic stimuli such as narrative stories activate many more brain regions than single words or short sentences (Mazoyer et al., 1993;Xu et al., 2005;Jobard et al., 2007;Lerner et al., 2011).”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Mazoyer et al., 1993
- Not checked yetcites Xu et al., 2005
- Not checked yetcites Lerner et al., 2011
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“For example, when people listen to or read a story they likely employ conceptual knowledge at long time scales beyond those using for computing semantic features (Yeshurun et al., 2017).”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Yeshurun et al., 2017
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Therefore, studies performing intersubject averaging might average away meaningful signal and fail to find significant relationships (Fedorenko and Kanwisher, 2009).”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Fedorenko and Kanwisher, 2009 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“That study used as stimuli twenty-four single words derived from only six animate categories, and showed cross-modal representations within left pars triangularis.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Liuzzi et al., 2017
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“To our knowledge, only one previous study of cross-modal representation has used explicit semantic features to model brain activity patterns related to semantics (Liuzzi et al., 2017).”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Liuzzi et al., 2017
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper relies on this without support.
RSVP reading differs from natural reading in that the reader has no control over which word to read at each point in time.
“RSVP reading is different than natural reading because during RSVP the reader has no control over which word to read at each point in time.”
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?
In the citing paper
“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 [30]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Does the representation of semantic information vary with sensory modality?
“Each voxel was then colored according to a simple RGB color scheme, where the color red represents the first semantic PC, the color green represents the second semantic PC, and blue the third semantic PC.”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Results
“Each voxel is colored according to its projection onto the first (red), second (blue) or third (green) semantic PC.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Feature spaces
“The feature spaces were motion-energy features (39 parameters), spectral features (80 parameters), word rate (1 parameter), phoneme rate (1 parameter), phonemes (39 parameters), letter rate (1 parameter), letters (26 parameters), word length variation per repetition time (1 parameter), syntactic features (56 parameters), and co-occurrence semantics (985 parameters).”
§ The Representation of Semantic Information Across Human Cerebral Cortex During Listening Versus Reading Is Invariant to Stimulus Modality > Does the cortical distribution of semantically selective voxels depend on stimulus modality?
“Several low-level features (low-level visual, spectral, word rate, letter rate, word length variation, phonemes, phoneme rate, and pauses) and syntactic features were included alongside the semantic features as nuisance regressors (see Materials and Methods)”
Citations
Cites
Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing
Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x · Cited by 109,482 · cited 1×
“Resulting p-values were corrected for multiple comparisons within each participant using the false discovery rate (FDR) procedure (Benjamini and Hochberg, 1995).”
MethodThe assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory
Oldfield, R. C. (1971) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/0028-3932(71)90067-4 · Cited by 35,900 · cited 2×
“One participant was left handed, all other participants were right handed or ambidextrous according to the Edinburgh handedness inventory (Oldfield, 1971) (laterality quotient of 100: entirely left- handed, 100: entirely right-handed).”
MethodAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems 25
Zhang, Y., Sutton, C. A., Storkey, A., & Zoubin Ghahramani, A. (2012) · Cited by 12,653
Indexing by Latent Semantic Analysis
Deerwester, S., Dumais, S., Landauer, T., et al. (1990) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science · doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-4571(199009)41:6%3c391::aid-asi1%3e3.0.co;2-9 · Cited by 12,359 · cited 2×
“Semantic model construction To account for response variance caused by the semantic content of the story stimuli a 985-parameter semantic feature space based on word co-occurrence statistics in a large corpus of text (Deerwester et al., 1990; Lund and Burgess, 1996; Mitchell et al., 2008; Huth et al., 2016) was used.”
MethodJenkinson, M., Bannister, P., Brady, M., & Smith, S. (2002) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1006/nimg.2002.1132 · Cited by 11,888 · cited 1×
“Each functional run was motion-corrected using the FMRIB Linear Image Registration Tool (FLIRT) from FSL 5.0 (Jenkinson and Smith, 2001; Jenkinson et al., 2002).”
MethodInfluentialCortical Surface-Based Analysis
Dale, A. M., Fischl, B., & Sereno, M. I. (1999) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1006/nimg.1998.0395 · Cited by 10,910 · cited 1×
“Cortical surface reconstruction and visualization Cortical surface meshes were generated from the T1-weighted anatomical scans using Freesurfer software (Dale et al., 1999).”
MethodSolutions of Ill-Posed Problems.
Bell, J. B., Tikhonov, A. N., & Arsenin, V. Y. (1978) · Mathematics of Computation · doi:10.2307/2006360 · Cited by 8,096 · cited 1×
“Banded ridge regression is a special case of the well-established statistical approach called Tikhonov regression (Tikhonov and Arsenin, 1977).”
MethodThe fusiform face area: a module in human extrastriate cortex specialized for face perception
Kanwisher, N., McDermott, J., & Chun, M. M. (1997) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.17-11-04302.1997 · Cited by 7,738 · cited 1×
“The contrast between faces and objects was used to define the fusiform face area (Kanwisher et al., 1997) and occipital face area (Halgren et al.”
MethodA global optimisation method for robust affine registration of brain images
Jenkinson, M., & Smith, S. M. (2001) · Medical Image Analysis · doi:10.1016/s1361-8415(01)00036-6 · Cited by 7,018 · cited 1×
“Each functional run was motion-corrected using the FMRIB Linear Image Registration Tool (FLIRT) from FSL 5.0 (Jenkinson and Smith, 2001; Jenkinson et al., 2002).”
MethodInfluentialPraat, a system for doing phonetics by computer
Boersma, P. (2002) · UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) · Cited by 4,417
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- 10.2307/2346101 · DOI
- Bergstra, 2011, Algorithms for hyper-parameter optimization, 24, 2546
- 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0193(1999)7:1<29::AID-HBM3>3.0.CO;2-R · DOI
- 10.1016/S1053-8119(02)91132-8 · DOI · Paper page
- Oliphant TE (2006) A guide to NumPy, Vol 1, p 85. USA: Trelgol Publishing.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The default mode network: where the idiosyncratic self meets the shared social world
Yeshurun, Y., Nguyen, M., & Hasson, U. (2021) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/s41583-020-00420-w · Cited by 682
Semantic reconstruction of continuous language from non-invasive brain recordings
Tang, J., LeBel, A., Jain, S., & Huth, A. G. (2023) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/s41593-023-01304-9 · Cited by 442
“Although previous studies have demonstrated that most parts of cortex are active during language processing 5,22–24 , it is unclear which regions represent language at the granularity of words and phrases 25 , which regions are consistently engaged in language processing 26 and whether different…”
ResultSelf-citationDissociating language and thought in large language models
Mahowald, K., Ivanova, A. A., Blank, I. A., Kanwisher, N., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Fedorenko, E. (2024) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2024.01.011 · Cited by 345
“Below we briefly summarize a body of evidence from cognitive science and neuroscience that supports this dissociation.”
The language network as a natural kind within the broader landscape of the human brain
Fedorenko, E. G., Ivanova, A. A., & Regev, T. I. (2024) · Nature reviews. Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/s41583-024-00802-4 · Cited by 374
“Second, the language areas are modality-independent: they respond to diverse kinds of input, including spoken, written and signed language 19,64–67 (Fig.”
BackgroundKeep it real: rethinking the primacy of experimental control in cognitive neuroscience
Nastase, S. A., Goldstein, A., & Hasson, U. (2020) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117254 · Cited by 380
“…Heusser et al., 2018), comparing natural language across modalities and contexts (Stephens et al., 2010; Regev et al., 2013; Yeshurun et al., 2017; Deniz et al., 2019), and using data-driven modeling to capture the complexity of naturalistic neural responses (Haxby et al., 2011, 2020; Baldassano…”
Method
Metadata
- Authors
- Deniz, F., Nunez-Elizalde, A. O., Huth, A. G., & Gallant, J. L.
- Affiliations
- International Computer Science Institute (US)
- University of California, Berkeley (US)
- Venue
- The Journal of Neuroscience
- Publisher
- Society for Neuroscience
- Published
- 2019-08-19
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 39
- Pages
- 7722-7736
- ISSN
- 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
- 1529-2401
- PMC
- PMC6764208
- OpenAlex
- W2968395892
- Semantic Scholar
- 44731d68e7e65d7bd6807b53b348ee93c107411f
- Cited by
- 214
- References
- 78
- Citations by year
- 2026: 19 · 2025: 44 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 37 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 12.99
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (CCF0-939370, 0939370, 1208203)
- Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst
- National Institutes of Health (5r01ey019684-08)
- Advanced Research Projects Agency
- National Eye Institute (R01-EY019684, R01EY022454, EY022454, EY019684)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
- Keywords
- semantic representation, spoken language, written language, narrative stories, language comprehension, cerebral cortex
- MeSH terms
- Acoustic Stimulation, Adult, Auditory Perception, Cerebral Cortex, Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Models, Neurological, Photic Stimulation, Reading, Semantics, Visual Perception, Comprehension
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-07, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-07 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
