Dissociating the Human Language Pathways with High Angular Resolution Diffusion Fiber Tractography

Frey, Stephen; Campbell, Jennifer S. W.; Pike, G. Bruce; Petrides, Michael

doi:10.1523/jneurosci.2388-08.2008

Cited by 392 publications

(404 citation statements)

References 51 publications

(97 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

364

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These direct contrasts Overall, the comparisons employed in the present study yielded very similar patterns of cerebral activity. In all comparisons against the baseline, increased activity was found in the frontal operculum in IFG area 44 bilaterally as well as in the IPL area 40 bilaterally (except for the contrast HD minus CR for which the IPL activation was observed only in the left hemisphere) consistent with studies that have shown strong connections between these two areas (Frey et al, 2005;Frey et al, 2008;Kaplan et al, 2010). Furthermore, direct contrasts between the subordinate and dominant meanings revealed increased activity only in the right IPL (area 40) 21 implicating that area especially in the computation of alternative interpretations (see Table 1 for the complete list of peaks of increased activity).…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 86%

“…Indeed, the results of the present study revealed that the IPL area 40 bilaterally was involved in the computation of meaning of linguistic items with multiple interpretations. In particular, the strong cortico-cortical connections described in tracing studies (e.g., Frey et al, 2008;Petrides & Pandya, 2009) between area 44 and the inferior parietal lobule (area 40) were highlighted by showing that bilateral co-activations in IPL area 40 occur for all contrasts except for the contrast HD minus CR. This finding is not surprising as the dominant meaning of homonyms is very literal and dominant, thus exerting minimal demands on the RH network.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Based on evidence from diffusion tractography studies (Frey et al, 2008) and resting state connectivity studies (Kelly et al, 2010) that suggested that the region of the pars opercularis has distinct connections with the supramarginal region of the IPL (area 40; area PF/PFG) through the third branch of the superior longitudinal fasciculus, while area 45 (pars triangularis) connects with the superior temporal gyrus and sulcus via the extreme capsule fiber system (see also Dick & Tremblay, 2012;Kaplan et al, 2010), it was hypothesised that if the IFG activations were localised in area 44, then co-modulations should be observed in IPL area 40. Indeed, the results of the present study revealed that the IPL area 40 bilaterally was involved in the computation of meaning of linguistic items with multiple interpretations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In particular, Frey et al (2008), using diffusion fiber tractography demonstrated that area 44 (pars opercularis) has distinct connections with rostral inferior parietal lobule, namely the supramarginal gyrus, through the third branch of the superior longitudinal fasciculus (SLF III), while area 45 (pars triangularis) connects with the superior temporal gyrus via the extreme capsule fiber system (see also Dick & Tremblay, 2012;Kaplan et al, 2010). These results which replicated previous findings from experimental anatomical tracer studies in the macaque monkey (Petrides & Pandya, 1984) highlight the differences in connectivity between areas 44…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Pathways to lexical ambiguity: fMRI evidence for bilateral fronto-parietal involvement in language processing

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 86%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Pathways to lexical ambiguity: fMRI evidence for bilateral fronto-parietal involvement in language processing

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Both its density and complexity increased dramatically during human evolution, presumably driven largely by the highly advantageous appearance and progressive development of speech and language. As described recently in a series of diffusion tensor imaging and resting-state connectivity studies (6,7,10,22,60), this tract consists not only of a direct connection between caudal superior temporal and ventrolateral frontal areas, but also of a parallel, indirect connection through an intermediate station in the inferior parietal lobule. † with this dual-tract system extending ventrally into the middle and inferior temporal gyri as well as dorsally into the ventral premotor gyrus.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Test of a motor theory of long-term auditory memory

Schulze

Vargha‐Khadem

Mishkin

2012

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Monkeys can easily form lasting central representations of visual and tactile stimuli, yet they seem unable to do the same with sounds. Humans, by contrast, are highly proficient in auditory long-term memory (LTM). These mnemonic differences within and between species raise the question of whether the human ability is supported in some way by speech and language, e.g., through subvocal reproduction of speech sounds and by covert verbal labeling of environmental stimuli. If so, the explanation could be that storing rapidly fluctuating acoustic signals requires assistance from the motor system, which is uniquely organized to chain-link rapid sequences. To test this hypothesis, we compared the ability of normal participants to recognize lists of stimuli that can be easily reproduced, labeled, or both (pseudowords, nonverbal sounds, and words, respectively) versus their ability to recognize a list of stimuli that can be reproduced or labeled only with great difficulty (reversed words, i.e., words played backward). Recognition scores after 5-min delays filled with articulatory-suppression tasks were relatively high (75-80% correct) for all sound types except reversed words; the latter yielded scores that were not far above chance (58% correct), even though these stimuli were discriminated nearly perfectly when presented as reversed-word pairs at short intrapair intervals. The combined results provide preliminary support for the hypothesis that participation of the oromotor system may be essential for laying down the memory of speech sounds and, indeed, that speech and auditory memory may be so critically dependent on each other that they had to coevolve.evolution | mimic | arcuate fasciculus T he proficiency with which monkeys perform tests of both visual and tactile recognition does not extend to auditory recognition. In vision and touch, monkeys master the rule for one-trial recognition memory extremely rapidly, within several daily sessions (1, 2); and once they have learned the rule, it can be shown that they have stimulus-retention thresholds (performance at 75% accuracy) of 10-20 min after viewing or palpating a novel stimulus for only 1-2 s (3, 4). In audition, by contrast, monkeys acquire the rule for one-trial memory exceedingly slowly, requiring a full year or two of training before they can master it, if they succeed at all; and if they do succeed, their stimulus-retention thresholds are found to extend no longer than 30-40 s after stimulus presentation (5). This marked disparity in mnemonic ability across sensory modalities suggests that, in audition alone, monkeys seem unable to store stimulus representations in long-term memory (LTM) and, consequently, appear to be limited mnemonically to the time period covered by short-term memory. Humans, on the other hand, are highly proficient at storing lasting representations of auditory stimuli, such as words and tunes, thereby enabling their later recognition. What accounts for these striking mnemonic differences between audition and other sensory modalities in...

show abstract