4.6 Review

Renewal of the neurophysiology of language: Functional neuroimaging

期刊

PHYSIOLOGICAL REVIEWS
卷 85, 期 1, 页码 49-95

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/physrev.00049.2003

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Functional neuroimaging methods have reached maturity. It is now possible to start to build the foundations of a physiology of language. The remarkable number of neuroimaging studies performed so far illustrates the potential of this approach, which complements the classical knowledge accumulated on aphasia. Here we attempt to characterize the impact of the functional neuroimaging revolution on our understanding of language. Although today considered as neuroimaging techniques, we refer less to electroencephalography and magnetoencephalography studies than to positron emission tomography and functional magnetic resonance imaging studies, which deal more directly with the question of localization and functional neuroanatomy. This review is structured in three parts. 1) Because of their rapid evolution, we address technical and methodological issues to provide an overview of current procedures and sketch out future perspectives. 2) We review a set of significant results acquired in normal adults ( the core of functional imaging studies) to provide an overview of language mechanisms in the standard brain. Single-word processing is considered in relation to input modalities ( visual and auditory input), output modalities ( speech and written output), and the involvement of central semantic processes before sentence processing and nonstandard language ( illiteracy, multilingualism, and sensory deficits) are addressed. 3) We address the influence of plasticity on physiological functions in relation to its main contexts of appearance, i.e., development and brain lesions, to show how functional imaging can allow fine-grained approaches to adaptation, the fundamental property of the brain. In closing, we consider future developments for language research using functional imaging.

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

4.6
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