Comprehension of computer code relies primarily on domain-general executive brain regions

Srikant

Sueoka

et al. 2020

eLife

Self Cite

Computer programming is a novel cognitive tool that has transformed modern society. What cognitive and neural mechanisms support this skill? Here, we used functional magnetic resonance imaging to investigate two candidate brain systems: the multiple demand (MD) system, typically recruited during math, logic, problem solving, and executive tasks, and the language system, typically recruited during linguistic processing. We examined MD and language system responses to code written in Python, a text-based programming language (Experiment 1) and in ScratchJr, a graphical programming language (Experiment 2); for both, we contrasted responses to code problems with responses to content-matched sentence problems. We found that the MD system exhibited strong bilateral responses to code in both experiments, whereas the language system responded strongly to sentence problems, but weakly or not at all to code problems. Thus, the MD system supports the use of novel cognitive tools even when the input is structurally similar to natural language.

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comprehension of computer code relies primarily on domain-general executive brain regions

Srikant

Sueoka

et al. 2020

eLife

Self Cite

“…A network of left-lateralized frontal and temporal brain regions (here referred to as the language network) has been found to respond to written/spoken/signed words and sentences, but not to mental arithmetic, music perception, executive function tasks, action/gesture perception, or computer programming (Amalric & Dehaene, 2019;X. Chen et al, 2021;Fedorenko et al, 2011;Ivanova et al, 2020;Jouravlev et al, 2019;Liu et al, 2020;MacSweeney et al, 2002;Monti et al, 2009Monti et al, , 2012Pritchett et al, 2018). Similarly, investigations of patients with profound disruption of language capacity ( global aphasia) have shown that some of these individuals can solve arithmetic and logic problems, appreciate and create music, and think about others' thoughts in spite of their language impairment (Basso & Capitani, 1985;Luria et al, 1965;Varley et al, 2005;Varley & Siegal, 2000), providing converging evidence that language is subserved by domain-specific cognitive mechanisms.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Language Network Is Recruited but Not Required for Nonverbal Event Semantics

Neurobiology of Language

Mineroff

Zimmerer

et al. 2021

Self Cite

The ability to combine individual concepts of objects, properties, and actions into complex representations of the world is often associated with language. Yet combinatorial event-level representations can also be constructed from nonverbal input, such as visual scenes. Here, we test whether the language network in the human brain is involved in and necessary for semantic processing of events presented nonverbally. In Experiment 1, we scanned participants with fMRI while they performed a semantic plausibility judgment task vs. a difficult perceptual control task on sentences and line drawings that describe/depict simple agent-patient interactions. We found that the language network responded robustly during the semantic task performed on both sentences and pictures (although its response to sentences was stronger). Thus, language regions in healthy adults are engaged during a semantic task performed on pictorial depictions of events. But is this engagement necessary? In Experiment 2, we tested two individuals with global aphasia, who have sustained massive damage to perisylvian language areas and display severe language difficulties, against a group of age-matched control participants. Individuals with aphasia were severely impaired on the task of matching sentences to pictures. However, they performed close to controls in assessing the plausibility of pictorial depictions of agent-patient interactions. Overall, our results indicate that the left fronto-temporal language network is recruited but not necessary for semantic processing of nonverbally presented events.

“…Recent evidence from neuroscience suggests that language processing is largely distinct from other aspects of cognition (Fedorenko & Blank, 2020;Fedorenko & Varley, 2016). A network of frontal and temporal brain regions (here referred to as the 'language network') has been found to respond to written/spoken/signed words and sentences, but not to mental arithmetic, music perception, executive function tasks, action/gesture perception, or computer programming (Amalric & Dehaene, 2019;Fedorenko et al, 2011;Ivanova et al, 2020;Jouravlev et al, 2019;Liu et al, 2020;Monti et al, 2009Monti et al, , 2012Pritchett et al, 2018). Similarly, investigations of patients with profound disruption of language capacity (global aphasia) have shown that these individuals can solve arithmetic and logic problems, appreciate music, and think about others' thoughts in spite of their language impairments (Basso & Capitani, 1985;Luria et al, 1965;Varley et al, 2005;Varley & Siegal, 2000), providing converging evidence that language and thought are neurally distinct.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The language network is recruited but not required for non-verbal event semantics

Mineroff

Zimmerer

et al. 2019

Preprint

Self Cite

Consistent with longstanding findings from neuropsychology, several brain regions in left frontal and temporal cortex respond robustly and selectively to language [1]. These regions, often referred to as the "language network", respond more strongly to meaningful stimuli (like words and sentences) than to stimuli devoid of meaning (like pseudowords and Jabberwocky sentences) [2]. But are these regions selectively recruited in processing linguistic meaning? Or do they instead store and/or process complex semantic information independent of its format (sentences or pictures)? In Experiment 1, we scanned participants with fMRI while they performed a semantic plausibility judgment task vs. a difficult perceptual control task on sentences and line drawings that describe/depict simple agent-patient interactions. We found that the language regions responded more strongly when participants performed the semantic task compared to the perceptual task, for both sentences and pictures (although sentences elicited overall stronger responses). Thus, healthy adults engage language regions when processing non-verbal meanings. But is this engagement necessary for understanding pictorial depictions of events? In Experiment 2, we tested two individuals with global aphasia, who have sustained massive damage to perisylvian language areas and display severe language difficulties, together with a group of control participants. Individuals with aphasia were at chance on a task of matching the sentences and pictures. However, they performed close to controls in assessing the plausibility of pictorial depictions of agent-patient interactions. Taken together, these results indicate that the left fronto-temporal language system is recruited but not necessary for processing complex non-verbal meanings.