Broca’s Area Is Not a Natural Kind

Fedorenko, Evelina; Blank, Idan

doi:10.1016/j.tics.2020.01.001

Cited by 222 publications

(213 citation statements)

References 147 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

197

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The documented role of IFG in executive function could well account for the effects we observed. In this sense, our findings could support the view that Broca's area is a functionally heterogeneous region, comprising a domain-general "multiple-demand network" (Fedorenko and Blank, 2020).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

Differential causal involvement of human auditory and frontal cortices in vocal motor control

Ramirez-Cardenas

Behroozmand

Kocsis

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Differential causal involvement of human auditory and frontal cortices in vocal motor control AbstractSpeech motor control requires integration of sensory and motor information. Bidirectional communication between frontal and auditory cortices is crucial for speech production, selfmonitoring and motor control. We used cortical direct electrical stimulation (DES) to functionally dissect audio-motor interactions underlying speech production and motor control. Eleven neurosurgical patients performed a visually cued vocal task in which a short auditory feedback perturbation was introduced during vocalization. We evaluated the effect of DES on vocal initiation, voice fundamental frequency (F0) and feedback-dependent motor control. DES of frontal sites modulated vocal onset latencies. Stimulation of different inferior frontal gyrus sites elicited either shortening or prolongation of vocal latencies. DES distinctly modulated voice F0 at different vocalization stages. Frontal and temporal areas played an important role in setting voice F0 in the first 250 ms of an utterance, while Heschl's gyrus was involved later when auditory input is available for self-monitoring. Vocal responses to pitch-shifted auditory feedback were mostly reduced by DES of non-core auditory cortices.Overall, we demonstrate that vocal planning and initiation are driven by frontal cortices, while feedback-dependent control relies predominantly on non-core auditory cortices. Our findings represent direct evidence of the role played by different auditory and frontal regions in vocal motor control.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

Differential causal involvement of human auditory and frontal cortices in vocal motor control

Ramirez-Cardenas

Behroozmand

Kocsis

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Because prior literature has not delivered a clear answer as to the role of the MD network (also sometimes referred to as the "executive/cognitive control network" or "task positive network") in language comprehension, we here combined data from numerous diverse word and sentence comprehension experiments that have been conducted in our lab over the last decade. Given that each participant performed functional localizer tasks (e.g., Saxe et al, 2006) for the MD (and language) network, we could straightforwardly combine data from across experiments by pooling responses from functionally defined MD (or language) areas and have greater confidence that these constitute the 'same' regions (i.e., functional units) across individuals compared to relying on anatomy alone (e.g., Brett et al, 2002;Saxe et al, 2006;Fedorenko & Kanwisher, 2009;Fedorenko et al, 2010;Nieto-Castañon & Fedorenko, 2012;Fedorenko & Blank, 2020). The fact that the linguistic experiments varied in the presence of an explicit task (13 passive reading/listening experiments, 17 experiments with a task)-with the task further varying across experiments-allowed us to test the critical question of whether the MD network's engagement is restricted to cases where an explicit task is present.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…By this definition, these operations should be engaged regardless of whether we are processing linguistic input passively, or whether we have to perform some additional task on the input. Core linguistic computations include computations related to lexical access and combinatorial processing (syntactic parsing and semantic composition), both of which strongly engage the fronto-temporal language network (e.g., Fedorenko et al, 2010Fedorenko et al, , 2012Fedorenko et al, , 2020Bautista & Wilson, 2016). Might the materials used in the current studyacross the 30 experiments-not tap some core comprehension-related computations?…”

Section: 'Core' Linguistic Computations Not Tapped By Our Materials?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This network supports diverse cognitive tasks (Duncan & Owen, 2000;Fedorenko et al, 2013;Hugdahl et al, 2015) and has been linked to constructs like working memory, cognitive control, and goal-directed behavior (Cole & Shneider, 2007;Duncan, 2010). The MD network is dissociated from the language network (see Fedorenko & Blank, 2020, for a review), as evidenced by brain imaging studies (Fedorenko et al, 2011;Blank et al, 2014;Mineroff et al, 2018), patient investigations (Woolgar et al, 2018), and gene expression patterns (Kong et al, 2020). Therefore, the two networks likely serve separable computational goals.…”

Section: Introduction (699 Words)mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The domain-general multiple demand (MD) network does not support core aspects of language comprehension: a large-scale fMRI investigation

Diachek

Blank

Siegelman

et al. 2019

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AbstractAside from the language-selective left-lateralized fronto-temporal network, language comprehension sometimes additionally recruits a domain-general bilateral fronto-parietal network implicated in executive functions: the multiple demand (MD) network. However, the nature of the MD network’s contributions to language comprehension remains debated. To illuminate the role of this network in language processing, we conducted a large-scale fMRI investigation using data from 30 diverse word and sentence comprehension experiments (481 unique participants, 678 scanning sessions). In line with prior findings, the MD network was active during many language tasks. Moreover, similar to the language-selective network, which is robustly lateralized to the left hemisphere, these responses were stronger in the left-hemisphere MD regions. However, in stark contrast with the language-selective network, the MD network responded more strongly (i) to lists of unconnected words than to sentences, and critically, (ii) in paradigms with an explicit task compared to passive comprehension paradigms. In fact, many passive comprehension tasks failed to elicit a response above the fixation baseline in the MD network, in contrast to strong responses in the language-selective network. In tandem, these results argue against a role for the MD network in core aspects of sentence comprehension like inhibiting irrelevant meanings or parses, keeping intermediate representations active in working memory, or predicting upcoming words or structures. These results align with recent evidence of relatively poor tracking of the linguistic signal by the MD regions during naturalistic comprehension, and instead suggest that the MD network’s engagement during language processing likely reflects effort associated with extraneous task demands.Significance StatementDomain-general executive processes, like working memory and cognitive control, have long been implicated in language comprehension, including in neuroimaging studies that have reported activation in domain-general multiple demand (MD) regions for linguistic manipulations. However, much prior evidence has come from paradigms where language interpretation is accompanied by extraneous tasks. Using a large fMRI dataset (30 experiments/481 participants/678 sessions), we demonstrate that MD regions are engaged during language comprehension in the presence of task demands, but not during passive reading/listening—conditions that strongly activate the fronto-temporal language network. These results present a fundamental challenge to proposals whereby linguistic computations, like inhibiting irrelevant meanings, keeping representations active in working memory, or predicting upcoming elements, draw on domain-general executive resources.

show abstract

“…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).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Ivanova

Mineroff

Zimmerer

et al. 2019

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard 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.

show abstract

Broca’s Area Is Not a Natural Kind

Cited by 222 publications

References 147 publications

Differential causal involvement of human auditory and frontal cortices in vocal motor control

Differential causal involvement of human auditory and frontal cortices in vocal motor control

The domain-general multiple demand (MD) network does not support core aspects of language comprehension: a large-scale fMRI investigation

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About