The language network as a natural kind within the broader landscape of the human brain

Fedorenko, Evelina; Ivanova, Anna A.; Regev, Tamar I.

doi:10.1038/s41583-024-00802-4

Cited by 16 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 340 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We also examined the selectivity of the language fROIs defined by both the standard and the speeded localizers for language processing relative to a non-linguistic demanding cognitive task. Prior work has established that language-responsive brain areas (as defined by standard versions of the language localizer task) are highly selective for language relative to diverse non-linguistic inputs and tasks (e.g., Fedorenko et al, 2011; Ivanova et al, 2020, 2021; Chen et al, 2023; for reviews, see Fedorenko & Blank, 2020; Fedorenko et al, 2024). Here, we investigated whether the fROIs defined by the speeded language localizer exhibit a similar degree of selectivity.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These ‘language localizers’ robustly identify the left-lateralized fronto-temporal language network, which has long been implicated in language processing based on investigations of patients with aphasia (e.g., Luria, 1970; Goodglass, 1993; Bates et al, 2003; Fridriksson et al, 2018; Wilson et al, 2023) and group-averaging neuroimaging investigations of language processing (e.g., Binder et al, 1997; Price, 2010; Friederici, 2012). Importantly, language localizers are highly generalizable, eliciting similar activations across presentation modalities, materials, and tasks (see Fedorenko et al, 2024). Moreover, the brain regions that this localizer identifies closely correspond to those that emerge from the bottom-up clustering of voxel time-courses obtained during task-free resting state data (Braga et al, 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A 3.5-minute-long reading-based fMRI localizer for the language network

Tuckute,

Lee,

Sathe

et al. 2024

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The field of human cognitive neuroscience is increasingly acknowledging inter-individual differences in the precise locations of functional areas and the corresponding need for individual-level analyses in fMRI studies. One approach to identifying functional areas and networks within individual brains is based on robust and extensively validated ‘localizer’ paradigms—contrasts of conditions that aim to isolate some mental process of interest. Here, we present a new version of a localizer for the fronto-temporal language-selective network. This localizer is similar to a commonly-used localizer based on the reading of sentences and nonword sequences (Fedorenko et al., 2010) but uses speeded presentation (200ms per word/nonword). Based on a direct comparison between the standard version (450ms per word/nonword) and the speeded versions of the language localizer in 24 participants, we show that a single run of the speeded localizer (3.5 min) is highly effective at identifying the language-selective areas: indeed, it is more effective than the standard localizer given that it leads to an increased response to the critical (sentence) condition and a decreased response to the control (nonwords) condition. This localizer may therefore become the version of choice for identifying the language network in neurotypical adults or special populations (as long as they are proficient readers), especially when time is of essence.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A 3.5-minute-long reading-based fMRI localizer for the language network

Tuckute,

Lee,

Sathe

et al. 2024

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Language processing robustly recruits RH homotopic areas across the lifespan 8,68 see SI-2 for evidence from the current study), although with consistently lower and less spatially extensive responses in the RH compared to the LH language areas. One reason why these RH areas can take on language function early but not later in life may be that, with age, the RH areas become specialized for storing and processing certain kinds of non-linguistic information (e.g., social information 69,70 ) whereas the LH areas remain language-selective 40 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Here, we characterize the development of the language network across two independent pediatric cohorts (Dataset 1: 206 children, aged 4-14, and 91 adults; Dataset 2: 67 children, aged 4-16, and 16 adults). We use a robust individual-subject fMRI approach (‘precision fMRI’ 31,33,37,38 ) and an extensively validated language ‘localizer’ paradigm 8,31,39 , which robustly isolates the language areas from both lower-level speech areas and domain-general areas sensitive to task demands 40,41 . Although our main focus is on lateralization, we also examine other properties of the language network, for which the developmental trajectory remains also debated in the developmental neuroscience literature.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Precision fMRI reveals that the language network exhibits adult-like left-hemispheric lateralization by 4 years of age

Ozernov-Palchik,

O’Brien,

Lee

et al. 2024

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Left hemisphere damage in adulthood often leads to linguistic deficits, but many cases of early damage leave linguistic processing preserved, and a functional language system can develop in the right hemisphere. To explain this early apparent equipotentiality of the two hemispheres for language, some have proposed that the language system is bilateral during early development and only becomes left-lateralized with age. We examined language lateralization using functional magnetic resonance imaging with two large pediatric cohorts (total n=273 children ages 4-16; n=107 adults). Strong, adult-level left-hemispheric lateralization (in activation volume and response magnitude) was evident by age 4. Thus, although the right hemisphere can take over language function in some cases of early brain damage, and although some features of the language system do show protracted development (magnitude of language response and strength of inter-regional correlations in the language network), the left-hemisphere bias for language is robustly present by 4 years of age.

show abstract

“…The overall pattern of results suggests that the semantic system is engaged in processing ToM in the mentalistic N400 experiments. Such an interpretation does not preclude the possibility that the ToM and language networks are separate systems that work closely together (Paunov et al, 2019;Shain et al, 2023;Fedorenko et al, 2024). The semantic system could work mentalistically without subserving other ToM functions.…”

Section: 4mentioning

confidence: 99%

Meaning as mentalization

Forgács

2024

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The way we establish meaning has been a profound question not only in language research but in developmental science as well. The relation between linguistic form and content has been loosened up in recent pragmatic approaches to communication, showing that code-based models of language comprehension must be augmented by context-sensitive, pragmatic-inferential mechanisms to recover the speaker’s intended meaning. Language acquisition has traditionally been thought to involve building a mental lexicon and extracting syntactic rules from noisy linguistic input, while communicative-pragmatic inferences have also been argued to be indispensable. Recent research findings exploring the electrophysiological indicator of semantic processing, the N400, have raised serious questions about the traditional separation between semantic decoding and pragmatic inferential processes. The N400 appears to be sensitive to mentalization—the ability to attribute beliefs to social partners—already from its developmental onset. This finding raises the possibility that mentalization may not simply contribute to pragmatic inferences that enrich linguistic decoding processes but that the semantic system may be functioning in a fundamentally mentalistic manner. The present review first summarizes the key contributions of pragmatic models of communication to language comprehension. Then, it provides an overview of how communicative intentions are interpreted in developmental theories of communication, with a special emphasis on mentalization. Next, it discusses the sensitivity of infants to the information-transmitting potential of language, their ability to pick up its code-like features, and their capacity to track language comprehension of social partners using mentalization. In conclusion, I argue that the recovery of meaning during linguistic communication is not adequately modeled as a process of code-based semantic retrieval complemented by pragmatic inferences. Instead, the semantic system may establish meaning, as intended, during language comprehension and acquisition through mentalistic attribution of content to communicative partners.

show abstract

The language network as a natural kind within the broader landscape of the human brain

Cited by 16 publications

References 340 publications

A 3.5-minute-long reading-based fMRI localizer for the language network

A 3.5-minute-long reading-based fMRI localizer for the language network

Precision fMRI reveals that the language network exhibits adult-like left-hemispheric lateralization by 4 years of age

Meaning as mentalization

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About