4.4 Article

Cortico-striatal language pathways dynamically adjust for syntactic complexity: A computational study

期刊

BRAIN AND LANGUAGE
卷 164, 期 -, 页码 53-62

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.bandl.2016.08.005

关键词

Sentence comprehension; Striatum; Cortico-striatal language network; Reservoir computing

资金

  1. ALF (Uppsala County Council) grant from Uppsala University, Institute of Neuroscience

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A growing body of literature supports a key role of fronto-striatal circuits in language perception. It is now known that the striatum plays a role in engaging attentional resources and linguistic rule computation while also serving phonological short-term memory capabilities. The ventral semantic and the dorsal phonological stream dichotomy assumed for spoken language processing also seems to play a role in cortico-striatal perception. Based on recent studies that correlate deep Broca-striatal pathways with complex syntax performance, we used a previously developed computational model of frontal-striatal syntax circuits and hypothesized that different parallel language pathways may contribute to canonical and non canonical sentence comprehension separately. We modified and further analyzed a thematic role assignment task and corresponding reservoir computing model of language circuits, as previously developed by Dominey and coworkers. We examined the models performance under various parameter regimes, by influencing how fast the presented language input decays and altering the temporal dynamics of activated word representations. This enabled us to quantify canonical and non-canonical sentence comprehension abilities. The modeling results suggest that separate cortico-cortical and cortico-striatal circuits may be recruited differently for processing syntactically more difficult and less complicated sentences. Alternatively, a single circuit would need to dynamically and adaptively adjust to syntactic complexity. (C) 2016 Published by Elsevier Inc.

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

4.4
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