From a concept to a word in a syntactically complete sentence: An fMRI study on spontaneous language production in an overt picture description task

Grande, M.; Meffert, Elisabeth; Schoenberger, Eva; Jung, Stefanie; Frauenrath, T.; Huber, Walter; Hußmann, Katja; Moormann, Mareike; Heim, Stefan

doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.03.087

Cited by 51 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 79 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Less is known about the neural basis of grammatical production in cognitively healthy speakers, but again neuroimaging studies have highlighted the left fronto-temporal-parietal language network for sentence production, in particular inferior frontal regions (Grande et al, 2012; Indefrey, Hellwig, Herzog, Seitz, & Hagoort, 2004; Segaert, Menenti, Weber, Petersson, & Hagoort, 2012). …”

Section: Neural Mechanisms Of Grammatical Processing Deficitsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Grammatical impairments in PPA

Thompson

Mack

2014

Aphasiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Grammatical impairments are commonly observed in the agrammatic subtype of primary progressive aphasia (PPA-G), whereas grammatical processing is relatively preserved in logopenic (PPA-L) and semantic (PPA-S) subtypes. Aims We review research on grammatical deficits in PPA and associated neural mechanisms, with discussion focused on production and comprehension of four aspects of morphosyntactic structure: grammatical morphology, functional categories, verbs and verb argument structure, and complex syntactic structures. We also address assessment of grammatical deficits in PPA, with emphasis on behavioral tests of grammatical processing. Finally, we address research examining the effects of treatment for progressive grammatical impairments. Main Contribution PPA-G is associated with grammatical deficits that are evident across linguistic domains in both production and comprehension. PPA-G is associated with damage to regions including the left inferior frontal gyrus (IFG) and dorsal white matter tracts, which have been linked to impaired comprehension and production of complex sentences. Detailing grammatical deficits in PPA is important for estimating the trajectory of language decline and associated neuropathology. We, therefore, highlight several new assessment tools for examining different aspects of morphosyntactic processing in PPA. Conclusions Individuals with PPA-G present with agrammatic deficit patterns distinct from those associated with PPA-L and PPA-S, but similar to those seen in agrammatism resulting from stroke, and patterns of cortical atrophy and white matter changes associated with PPA-G have been identified. Methods for clinical evaluation of agrammatism, focusing on comprehension and production of grammatical morphology, functional categories, verbs and verb argument structure, and complex syntactic structures are recommended and tools for this are emerging in the literature. Further research is needed to investigate the real-time processes underlying grammatical impairments in PPA, as well as the structural and functional neural correlates of grammatical impairments across linguistic domains. Few studies have examined the effects of treatment for grammatical impairments in PPA; research in this area is needed to better understand how (or if) grammatical processing ability can be improved, the potential for spared neural tissue to be recruited to support this, and whether the neural connections within areas of dysfunctional tissue required for grammatical processing can be enhanced using cortical stimulation.

show abstract

Section: Neural Mechanisms Of Grammatical Processing Deficitsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Grammatical impairments in PPA

Thompson

Mack

2014

Aphasiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the domain of language, cognitive control has been shown to play an important role in language production , based on behavioral evidence (e.g., Alm and Nilsson, 2001; Roelofs and Piai, 2011; Strijkers et al, 2011), brain imaging studies (e.g., Müller et al, 1997; Ojemann et al, 1998; Indefrey and Levelt, 2004; Kerns et al, 2004; Haller et al, 2005; Shuster and Lemieux, 2005; Alario et al, 2006; Bohland and Guenther, 2006; Shapiro et al, 2006; Basho et al, 2007; Harrington et al, 2007; Troiani et al, 2008; den Ouden et al, 2009; Eickhoff et al, 2009; Wilson et al, 2009; Brendel et al, 2010; Tremblay and Small, 2011; Adank, 2012; Geranmayeh et al, 2012; Grande et al, 2012; Heim et al, 2012; Delnooz et al, 2013) and investigations of patients with brain damage (e.g., Ziegler et al, 1997; Nestor et al, 2003; Ash et al, 2010; Wilson et al, 2010; Baldo et al, 2011; Coelho et al, 2012; Endo et al, 2013). Indeed, planning and producing linguistic utterances bears intuitive similarity to non-linguistic goal-directed behaviors like reaching (e.g., Bernstein, 1996; Culham and Valyear, 2006; Grafton and Hamilton, 2007; Ridderinkhof et al, 2011) or playing a musical instrument (e.g., Meister et al, 2004).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of domain-general cognitive control in language comprehension

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What role does domain-general cognitive control play in understanding linguistic input? Although much evidence has suggested that domain-general cognitive control and working memory resources are sometimes recruited during language comprehension, many aspects of this relationship remain elusive. For example, how frequently do cognitive control mechanisms get engaged when we understand language? And is this engagement necessary for successful comprehension? I here (a) review recent brain imaging evidence for the neural separability of the brain regions that support high-level linguistic processing vs. those that support domain-general cognitive control abilities; (b) define the space of possibilities for the relationship between these sets of brain regions; and (c) review the available evidence that constrains these possibilities to some extent. I argue that we should stop asking whether domain-general cognitive control mechanisms play a role in language comprehension, and instead focus on characterizing the division of labor between the cognitive control brain regions and the more functionally specialized language regions.

show abstract

“…For example, demonstrated that the left MTG showed greater activation while processing event verbs (e.g., running) and event nouns (e.g., concert) than while processing object nouns (e.g., strawberry). The role of the left MTG is also considered to involve semantic control because this area was activated in semantic tasks that required efficient semantic retrieval (Gennari et al, 2007;Grande et al, 2012). found that the left MTG was more strongly associated with successful lexical retrieval during continuous spontaneous language production compared with during unsuccessful retrieval.…”

Section: The Left Middle Temporal Gyrus and Oral Proficiency In L2mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We predicted that L2 communication would be modulated by the neural bases of social interaction, eliciting differential engagement of (a) the sensorimotor area associated with action simulation and (b) the deliberative semantic processing area associated with lexical selection as well as the theory-of-mind areas necessary for conceptual generation in both L1 and L2 communication, allowing subjects to compensate for limited communicative skills. The left angular gyrus (AG) and middle and posterior temporal areas, which are associated with lexical storage and semantic concepts (Binder et al, 2009;Braun et al, 2001;Grande et al, 2012), may be sensitive to oral proficiency levels during L2 communication. Furthermore, the neural correlates of L2 communication, but not of L2 description or L1 communication, would be sensitive to the language-related anxiety of individuals.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neural correlates of second-language communication and the effect of language anxiety

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Communicative speech is a type of language use that involves goal-directed action targeted at another person based on social interactive knowledge. Previous studies regarding one's first language (L1) have treated the theory of mind system, which is associated with understanding others, and the sensorimotor system, which is associated with action simulation, as important contributors to communication. However, little is known about the neural basis of communication in a second language (L2), which is limited in terms of its use as a communication tool. In this fMRI study, we manipulated the type of speech (i.e., communication vs. description) and the type of language (L1 vs. L2) to identify the specific brain areas involved in L2 communication. We also attempted to examine how the cortical mechanisms underlying L2 speech production are influenced by oral proficiency and anxiety regarding L2. Thirty native Japanese speakers who had learned English as an L2, performed communicative and descriptive speech-production tasks in both L1 and L2 while undergoing fMRI scanning. We found that the only the L2 communication task recruited the left posterior supramarginal gyrus (pSMG), which may be associated with the action simulation or prediction involved in generating goal-directed actions. Furthermore, the neural mechanisms underlying L2 communication, but not L2 description, were sensitive to both oral proficiency and anxiety levels; (a) activation in the left middle temporal gyrus (MTG) increased as oral proficiency levels increased, and (b) activation in the orbitofrontal cortex (OFC), including the left insula, decreased as L2 anxiety levels increased. These results reflect the successful retrieval of lexical information in a pragmatic context and an inability to monitor social behaviors due to anxiety. Taken together, the present results suggest that L2 communication relies on social skills and is mediated by anxiety and oral proficiency.

show abstract

From a concept to a word in a syntactically complete sentence: An fMRI study on spontaneous language production in an overt picture description task

Cited by 51 publications

References 79 publications

Grammatical impairments in PPA

Grammatical impairments in PPA

The role of domain-general cognitive control in language comprehension

Neural correlates of second-language communication and the effect of language anxiety

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About