fMRI investigation of sentence comprehension by eye and by ear: Modality fingerprints on cognitive processes

Abstract

Abstract:The neural substrate underlying reading vs. listening comprehension of sentences was compared using fMRI. One way in which this issue was addressed was by comparing the patterns of activation particularly in cortical association areas that classically are implicated in language processing. The precise locations of the activation differed between the two modalities. In the left inferior frontal gyrus (Broca's area), the activation associated with listening was more anterior and inferior than the activation associated with reading, suggesting more semantic processing during listening comprehension. In the left posterior superior and middle temporal region (roughly, Wernicke's area), the activation for listening was closer to primary auditory cortex (more anterior and somewhat more lateral) than the activation for reading. In several regions, the activation was much more left lateralized for reading than for listening. In addition to differences in the location of the activation, there were also differences in the total amount of activation in the two modalities in several regions. A second way in which the modality comparison was addressed was by examining how the neural systems responded to comprehension workload in the two modalities by systematically varying the structural complexity of the sentences to be processed. Here, the distribution of the workload increase associated with the processing of additional structural complexity was very similar across the two input modalities. The results suggest a number of subtle differences in the cognitive processing underlying listening vs. reading comprehension. Hum. Brain Mapping 13:239-252, 2001.

Differential effects of syntactic and semantic processing on the subregions of Broca’s area

“…There were three conditions, syntactic (sentences with than to conjoined active sentences [25,28]. In addition, incorrect word orderings), morphosyntactic (sentences with there was a marginal effect of type of grammatical agreement errors), and phonotactic (sentences with words violation during the processing of conjoined active sentcontaining illegal consonant strings).…”

“…One possible explana- processes. example, the ability of agrammatic patients to make ence that has been observed several times when the task thematic role assignment: the use of a temporal-spatial strategy, requires comprehension [25,28]. Despite this behavioral Brain Lang.…”

“…The fMRI procedure absence of a reliable sentence complexity effect during relies on BOLD contrast (blood oxygenation level-depengrammaticality judgment stands in contrast to the oftendent) to measure the oxygen level in the microvasculature reported presence of such effects when the task requires supporting neuronal activity. Two steps were taken to comprehension of the sentence content [25,28]. insure that the fMRI-measured activation was due to changes in cortical micro-vascular activity rather than 3 .2. fMRI results changes in the blood-flow rate of larger vessels.…”

Attenuation of cue-induced cigarette craving and anterior cingulate cortex activation in bupropion-treated smokers: a preliminary study

“…In other functional imaging studies, activation of this region has been associated with recognizing the meaning of an object (Whatmough et al, 2002), recognizing images of the human body (Downing et al, 2001), listening to complex sentences (Michael et al, 2001), and visual recognition of speech (Bernstein et al, 2002). The present study indicates that treated smokers may have been more able to attend to these aspects of the cigarette cue video (which had several scenes of subjects conversing while smoking) than untreated smokers (who may have been focused on urge to smoke during the cigarette cue video).…”

Native and non-native reading of sentences: An fMRI experiment

“…This pooling of evidence may, however, not be justified. A direct contrast between the processing of L2 language stimuli presented in different modalities has, to our knowledge, not been undertaken, however, comparisons have been made between the processing of auditory vs. visual language stimuli for L1 speakers alone (Chee et al, 1999a;Michael et al, 2001). In these studies, small but stable differences between language processing in different modalities are reported.…”