Aphasia localization: was Pierre Marie right?

Coutinho, Léo; Caramelli, Paulo; Teive, Hélio A.G.

doi:10.1093/brain/awab400

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is also important to interpret our findings within a growing set of literatures suggesting that the LIFC clearly plays multiple roles in both language-specific and domain-general functions (Fedorenko & Blank, 2020;Novick et al, 2005Novick et al, , 2010Matchin, 2018;Friederici, 2020;Grodzinsky & Santi, 2008;Hagoort, 2013;Matchin & Hickok, 2020;Tremblay & Dick, 2016;Zaccarella et al, 2017). Moreover, while LIFC clearly plays a role as a hub of the speech production system, the neural architecture supporting speech production is complex, widespread, and context-dependent (Hickok et al, 2022;Bulut, 2022;Coutinho et al, 2021). Indeed, whereas the anterior portion of LIFC (pars triangularis or Brodmann's Area 45) is often associated with semantic processing (Schell et al, 2017;Friederici, 2011Friederici, , 2012Hagoort, 2013), the posterior portion of LIFC (pars opercularis or Brodmann's Area 44) is involved in syntactic processing (Hagoort, 2013;Ullman, 2016;Friederici, 2011Friederici, , 2012 and domain-general cognitive control processes (Novick et al, 2010;Fedorenko & Blank, 2020), in addition to being strongly linked to multiple features of high-level speech production, including phonological retrieval (Matchin, 2018), lexical selection (Conner et al, 2019), and syllabic sequencing (Rong et al, 2018;Hickok et al, 2022).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 70%

Disruption to left inferior frontal cortex modulates semantic prediction effects in reading and subsequent memory: Evidence from simultaneous TMS-EEG

Silcox¹,

Mickey²,

Payne³

2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Readers use prior context to predict features of upcoming words. When predictions are accurate, this increases the efficiency of comprehension. However, little is known about the fate of predictable and unpredictable words in memory or the neural systems governing these processes. Several theories suggest that the speech production system, including the left inferior frontal cortex (LIFC), is recruited for prediction but evidence that LIFC plays a causal role is lacking. We first examined the effects of predictability on memory and then tested the role of posterior LIFC using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). In Experiment 1, participants read category cues, followed by a predictable, unpredictable, or incongruent target word for later recall. We observed a predictability benefit to memory, with predictable words remembered better than unpredictable words. In Experiment 2, participants performed the same task with electroencephalography (EEG) while undergoing event-related TMS over posterior LIFC using a protocol known to disrupt speech production, or over the right hemisphere homologue as an active control site. Under control stimulation, predictable words were better recalled than unpredictable words, replicating Experiment 1. This predictability benefit to memory was eliminated under LIFC stimulation. Moreover, while an a priori ROI-based analysis did not yield evidence for a reduction in the N400 predictability effect, mass-univariate analyses did suggest that the N400 predictability effect was reduced in spatial and temporal extent under LIFC stimulation. Collectively, these results provide causal evidence that the LIFC is recruited for prediction during silent reading, consistent with prediction-through-production accounts.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 70%

Disruption to left inferior frontal cortex modulates semantic prediction effects in reading and subsequent memory: Evidence from simultaneous TMS-EEG

Silcox¹,

Mickey²,

Payne³

2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is also important to interpret our findings within a growing set of literatures suggesting that the LIFC clearly plays multiple roles in both language‐specific and domain‐general functions (Fedorenko & Blank, 2020; Friederici, 2020; Grodzinsky & Santi, 2008; Hagoort, 2013; Matchin, 2018; Matchin & Hickok, 2020; Novick et al, 2005, 2010; Tremblay & Dick, 2016; Zaccarella et al, 2017). Moreover, while LIFC clearly plays a role as a hub of the speech production system, the neural architecture supporting speech production is complex, widespread, and context‐dependent (Bulut, 2022; Coutinho et al, 2021). Indeed, whereas the anterior portion of LIFC (pars triangularis or Brodmann's Area 45) is often associated with semantic processing (Friederici, 2011, 2012; Hagoort, 2013; Schell et al, 2017), the posterior portion of LIFC (pars opercularis or Brodmann's Area 44) is involved in syntactic processing (Friederici, 2011, 2012; Hagoort, 2013; Ullman, 2016) and domain‐general cognitive control processes (Fedorenko & Blank, 2020; Novick et al, 2010), in addition to being strongly linked to multiple features of high‐level speech production, including phonological retrieval (Matchin, 2018), lexical selection (Conner et al, 2019), and syllabic sequencing (Rong et al, 2018).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Disruption to left inferior frontal cortex modulates semantic prediction effects in reading and subsequent memory: Evidence from simultaneous TMS‐EEG

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The human brain is widely considered "a fundamentally proactive device " (p. 184, Van Berkum, 2010), that "continuously generates predictions that anticipate the relevant future" (p. 1235, Bar, 2009; see also Bar, 2007;Mesulam, 2008). In language comprehension, it has been argued that readers/listeners use prior context in an anticipatory manner, leading to the preconscious prediction of semantic, syntactic, or perceptual features of likely upcoming words. This preactivation, when accurate, facilitates processing when the predicted word is encountered

show abstract