Cited by 196Neurobiology of Language and BilingualismNeuroscience and Music PerceptionCategorization, perception, and language

Not lost in translation: neural responses shared across languages

Open access
Honey, Christopher J., Thompson, Christopher R., Lerner, Yulia, Hasson, Uri·2012·The Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

How similar are the brains of listeners who hear the same content expressed in different languages? We directly compared the fMRI response time courses of English speakers and Russian speakers who listened to a real-life Russian narrative and its English translation. In the translation, we tried to preserve the content of the narrative while reducing the structural similarities across languages. The story evoked similar brain responses, invariant to the structural changes across languages, beginning just outside early auditory areas and extending through temporal, parietal, and frontal cerebral cortices. The similarity of responses across languages was nearly equal to the similarity of responses within each language group. The present results demonstrate that the human brain processes real-life information in a manner that is largely insensitive to the language in which that information is conveyed. The methods introduced here can potentially be used to quantify the transmission of meaning across cultural and linguistic boundaries.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1523/jneurosci.1800-12.2012

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • High-level DMN areas have been previously found to encode amodal abstract information.

    “Accordingly, movie-viewing to spoken-recall pattern correlations were not found in low-level sensory areas, but instead were located in high-level DMN areas, which have been previously found to encode amodal abstract information (Binder et al. 2009; Honey et al. 2012; Regev et al. 2013).”
  • When the same story is delivered in different modalities or languages, DMN activity follows similar time courses despite large differences in physical features.

    “For example, the same narrative presented in different modalities (Regev et al., 2013; Baldassano et al., 2017; Zadbood et al., 2017) or languages (Honey et al., 2012) elicits similar time-courses of neural activity throughout the DMN despite major differences in low-level physical properties.”

    From Shared understanding of narratives is correlated with shared neural responses (2019) · cites this paper as Honey et al., 2012

  • To align the two stimuli in time, the animation was divided into 76 brief events and the spoken story was edited so each event began at the same moment, as in earlier studies.

    “Thus, in order to time-lock the two stimuli, the Movie animation was segmented into 76 short events or actions (e.g. child bounces balls, parent kisses child goodnight, child and friend make a plan). The raw Audio story was edited to match the onset of each event in the animation, following Regev et al. (2013) and Honey et al. (2012) (Fig. 1).”

    From Shared understanding of narratives is correlated with shared neural responses (2019) · cites this paper as Honey et al. (2012)

  • In cross-condition comparisons, the sound amplitude envelope was regressed out of each participant's brain signal to remove shared auditory drive.

    “Following Honey et al. (2012), for between-condition analyses, we thus projected out the audio envelope from each subject’s neural response.”

    From Shared understanding of narratives is correlated with shared neural responses (2019) · cites this paper as Honey et al. (2012)

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Honey, C. J., Thompson, C. R., Lerner, Y., & Hasson, U.
Affiliations
Princeton University (US)
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Published
2012-10-31
Volume
32
Issue
44
Pages
15277-15283
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W2035023916
Cited by
192
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 45 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
1.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH094480)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (R21DA024423)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Music Perception
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Categorization, perception, and language
Keywords
language invariance, narrative comprehension, English-Russian translation, language processing, auditory cortex, temporal lobe, parietal cortex, frontal cortex
MeSH terms
Acoustic Stimulation, Adult, Algorithms, Brain, Brain Mapping, Cerebral Cortex, Female, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Language, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Memory, Oxygen, Psycholinguistics, Cluster Analysis, Multilingualism, Comprehension, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review