Lesion-symptom Mapping of Acceptability Judgments in Chronic Poststroke Aphasia Reveals the Neurobiological Underpinnings of Receptive Syntax

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 NEUROSCIENCES Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience Pub Date : 2024-03-20 DOI:10.1162/jocn_a_02134
Danielle Fahey;Julius Fridriksson;Gregory Hickok;William Matchin
{"title":"Lesion-symptom Mapping of Acceptability Judgments in Chronic Poststroke Aphasia Reveals the Neurobiological Underpinnings of Receptive Syntax","authors":"Danielle Fahey;Julius Fridriksson;Gregory Hickok;William Matchin","doi":"10.1162/jocn_a_02134","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Disagreements persist regarding the neural basis of syntactic processing, which has been linked both to inferior frontal and posterior temporal regions of the brain. One focal point of the debate concerns the role of inferior frontal areas in receptive syntactic ability, which is mostly assessed using sentence comprehension involving complex syntactic structures, a task that is potentially confounded with working memory. Syntactic acceptability judgments may provide a better measure of receptive syntax by reducing the need to use high working memory load and complex sentences and by enabling assessment of various types of syntactic violations. We therefore tested the perception of grammatical violations by people with poststroke aphasia (n = 25), along with matched controls (n = 16), using English sentences involving errors in word order, agreement, or subcategorization. Lesion data were also collected. Control participants performed near ceiling in accuracy with higher discriminability of agreement and subcategorization violations than word order; aphasia participants were less able to discriminate violations, but, on average, paralleled control participants discriminability of types of violations. Lesion-symptom mapping showed a correlation between discriminability and posterior temporal regions, but not inferior frontal regions. We argue that these results diverge from models holding that frontal areas are amodal core regions in syntactic structure building and favor models that posit a core hierarchical system in posterior temporal regions.","PeriodicalId":51081,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=10535078","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10535078/","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Disagreements persist regarding the neural basis of syntactic processing, which has been linked both to inferior frontal and posterior temporal regions of the brain. One focal point of the debate concerns the role of inferior frontal areas in receptive syntactic ability, which is mostly assessed using sentence comprehension involving complex syntactic structures, a task that is potentially confounded with working memory. Syntactic acceptability judgments may provide a better measure of receptive syntax by reducing the need to use high working memory load and complex sentences and by enabling assessment of various types of syntactic violations. We therefore tested the perception of grammatical violations by people with poststroke aphasia (n = 25), along with matched controls (n = 16), using English sentences involving errors in word order, agreement, or subcategorization. Lesion data were also collected. Control participants performed near ceiling in accuracy with higher discriminability of agreement and subcategorization violations than word order; aphasia participants were less able to discriminate violations, but, on average, paralleled control participants discriminability of types of violations. Lesion-symptom mapping showed a correlation between discriminability and posterior temporal regions, but not inferior frontal regions. We argue that these results diverge from models holding that frontal areas are amodal core regions in syntactic structure building and favor models that posit a core hierarchical system in posterior temporal regions.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
中风后慢性失语症患者可接受性判断的病变-症状映射揭示了接受性句法的神经生物学基础。
关于句法处理的神经基础一直存在分歧,句法处理与大脑的额下区和颞后区都有联系。争论的焦点之一是下额区在接受句法能力中的作用,这种能力主要是通过涉及复杂句法结构的句子理解来评估的,而这项任务有可能与工作记忆相混淆。句法可接受性判断可以减少使用高工作记忆负荷和复杂句子的需要,并能评估各种类型的句法违规行为,从而更好地衡量接受句法能力。因此,我们使用涉及词序、一致或子分类错误的英语句子,测试了脑卒中后失语症患者(n = 25)和匹配对照组(n = 16)对语法违规的感知。同时还收集了病变数据。对照组受试者的准确率接近上限,对违反协议和分类的辨别能力高于对词序的辨别能力;失语症受试者对违反协议和分类的辨别能力较弱,但平均而言,与对照组受试者对违反协议和分类类型的辨别能力相当。病变-症状映射显示,辨别能力与后颞区相关,但与下额区无关。我们认为,这些结果与认为额叶区是句法结构构建的模态核心区域的模型不同,而更倾向于认为颞叶后部区域是核心分层系统的模型。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 医学-神经科学
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
3.10%
发文量
151
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience investigates brain–behavior interaction and promotes lively interchange among the mind sciences.
期刊最新文献
Attentional Refreshing in Working Memory and Its Interplay with Long-term Memory: A Behavioral and EEG Study. Experimental Manipulation of the Bilateral Posterior Parietal Cortex Strengthens Associative Memory in Healthy Participants: A Continuous Theta-burst Stimulation. Similarity Distractors Increase the Burden of Chinese Character Selection and Updating in Working Memory. Theta Transcranial Alternating Current Stimulation Is Not Effective in Improving Working Memory Performance. Movement Strategy Moderates the Effect of Spatially Congruent Cues on the Stability of Rhythmic Bimanual Finger Movements.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1