Cited by 682Neurobiology of Language and BilingualismNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesReading and Literacy Development

Cognitive control and parsing: Reexamining the role of Broca’s area in sentence comprehension

Open access
Novick, Jared M., Trueswell, John C., Thompson-Schill, Sharon L.·2005·Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience

Abstract

A century of investigation into the role of the human frontal lobes in complex cognition, including language processing, has revealed several interesting but apparently contradictory findings. In particular, the results of numerous studies suggest that left inferior frontal gyrus (LIFG), which includes Broca's area, plays a direct role in sentence-level syntactic processing. In contrast, other brain-imaging and neuropsychological data indicate that LIFG is crucial for cognitive control--specifically, for overriding highly regularized, automatic processes, even when a task involves syntactically undemanding material (e.g., single words, a list of letters). We provide a unifying account of these findings, which emphasizes the importance of general cognitive control mechanisms for the syntactic processing of sentences. On the basis of a review of the neurocognitive and sentence-processing literatures, we defend the following three hypotheses: (1) LIFG is part of a network of frontal lobe subsystems that are generally responsible for the detection and resolution of incompatible stimulus representations; (2) the role of LIFG in sentence comprehension is to implement reanalysis in the face of misinterpretation; and (3) individual differences in cognitive control abilities in nonsyntactic tasks predict correlated variation in sentence-processing abilities pertaining to the recovery from misinterpretation.

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 · 10.3758/cabn.5.3.263

Cites

101 of 101 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?

  • The data are difficult to reconcile with the hypothesis that the left inferior frontal gyrus is engaged in domain general cognitive control.

    “Our data are difficult to reconcile with the widely favored hypothesis that this region is engaged in domain general cognitive control (8, 17); although we do see a weak response to the Stroop task in this region, we find no hint of activation for either of the other two cognitive control tasks [the MSIT task (39) and its variant, verbal MSIT (vMSIT)].”
  • The neuroimaging claims are based largely on observations of activation for a nonlanguage task in or near a general brain region previously implicated in language, without a direct demonstration of overlap of linguistic and nonlinguistic activations in the same subjects.

    “However, the neuroimaging claims are based largely on observations of activation for a nonlanguage task in or near a general brain region previously implicated in language (e.g., Broca's area), without a direct demonstration of overlap of linguistic and nonlinguistic activations in the same subjects.”

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

2 of the 103 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. Baddeley, A. [D.] (1986). Working memory. New York: Oxford Uni- versity Press.
  2. Broca, P. P. (1861). Loss of speech, chronic softening and partial de- struction of the anterior left lobe of the brain (Christopher D. Green, Trans.). Retrieved September 10, 2003, from http://psychclassics. yorku.ca. Bulletin de la Société Anthropologique, 2, 235-238.
  3. Ferreira, F., Christianson, K., & Hollingworth, A. (2001). Mis- interpretations of garden-path sentences: Implications for models of reanalysis. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30, 3-20.
  4. Hagoort, P. (2003). How the brain solves the binding problem for lan- guage. Manuscript from a position paper presented at the 9th Annual Conference on Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Pro- cessing, Glasgow, Scotland.
  5. Kim, A. E., Srinivas, B., & Trueswell, J. C. (2002). The convergence of lexicalist perspectives in psycholinguistics and computational lin- guistics. In P. Merlo & S. Stevenson (Eds.), The lexical basis of sen- tence processing: Formal, computational, and experimental perspec- tives (pp. 109-135). Philadelphia: Benjamins.
  6. Mendelsohn, A. (2002). Individual differences in ambiguity resolution: Working memory and inhibition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northeastern University.
  7. Noppeney, U., & Price, C. J. (2004). An f MRI study of syntactic adap- tation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16, 702-713.
  8. Novick, J. M., January, D., Trueswell, J. C., & Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2004). Prefrontal cortex and the role of selectional processes in language comprehension: Frogs, napkins, and Broca's area. Poster presented at the 17th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, Baltimore.
  9. Novick, J. M., Trueswell, J. C., January, D., & Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2004). The role of conflict resolution in parsing: Measuring in- dividual differences in syntactic ambiguity resolution and executive control. Paper presented at the 10th Annual Conference on Architec- tures and Mechanisms in Language Processing, Aix-en-Provence, France.
  10. Trueswell, J. C., Papafragou, A., & Choi, Y. (in press). Syntactic and referential processes: What develops? In E. Gibson & N. Perl- mutter (Eds.), The processing and acquisition of reference. Cam- bridge, MA: MIT Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Novick, J. M., Trueswell, J. C., & Thompson-Schill, S. L.
Affiliations
University of Pennsylvania (US)
Corresponding author
Novick, Jared M.
Venue
Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
Published
2005-09
Volume
5
Issue
3
Pages
263-281
ISSN
  • 1530-7026 (ISSN-L)
  • 1531-135X
OpenAlex
W2073929588
Cited by
682
References
103
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 65 · 2021: 58 · 2020: 39 · 2019: 33 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 38 · 2016: 41 · 2015: 46 · 2014: 28 · 2013: 45 · 2012: 44
FWCI
0.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH067008, R01 MH67008)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01HD037507, R01-HD37507)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
Keywords
Broca's area, left inferior frontal gyrus, cognitive control, sentence comprehension, syntactic analysis, reanalysis, misinterpretation, frontal lobe, individual differences, automatic processes, language processing
MeSH terms
Aphasia, Broca, Brain Mapping, Cognition, Dominance, Cerebral, Frontal Lobe, Humans, Language, Models, Neurological, Nerve Net, Verbal Behavior, 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.

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