4.8 Article

Bihemispheric foundations for human speech comprehension

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1000531107

关键词

brain; language; morphology; inflection

资金

  1. Medical Research Council Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit [U.1055.04.002.00001.01]
  2. Medical Research Council
  3. European Research Council
  4. MRC [MC_U105580454, G0500842, G19/27] Funding Source: UKRI
  5. Medical Research Council [MC_U105580454, G19/27, G0500842] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Emerging evidence from neuroimaging and neuropsychology suggests that human speech comprehension engages two types of neurocognitive processes: a distributed bilateral system underpinning general perceptual and cognitive processing, viewed as neurobiologically primary, and a more specialized left hemisphere system supporting key grammatical language functions, likely to be specific to humans. To test these hypotheses directly we covaried increases in the nonlinguistic complexity of spoken words [presence or absence of an embedded stem, e.g., claim (clay)] with variations in their linguistic complexity (presence of inflectional affixes, e.g., play+ed). Nonlinguistic complexity, generated by the on-line competition between the full word and its onset-embedded stem, was found to activate both right and left fronto-temporal brain regions, including bilateral BA45 and -47. Linguistic complexity activated left-lateralized inferior frontal areas only, primarily in BA45. This contrast reflects a differentiation between the functional roles of a bilateral system, which supports the basic mapping from sound to lexical meaning, and a language-specific left-lateralized system that supports core decompositional and combinatorial processes invoked by linguistically complex inputs. These differences can be related to the neurobiological foundations of human language and underline the importance of bihemispheric systems in supporting the dynamic processing and interpretation of spoken inputs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据