Abstract
AbstractTo determine how language is implemented in the brain, it is important to know which brain areas are primarily engaged in language processing and which are not. Existing protocols for localizing language are typically univariate, treating each small unit of brain volume as independent. One prominent example that focuses on the overall language network in functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) uses a contrast between neural responses to sentences and sets of pseudowords (pronounceable nonwords). This contrast reliably activates peri-sylvian language areas but is less sensitive to extra-sylvian areas that are also known to support aspects of language such as word meanings (semantics). In this study, we assess areas where a multivariate, pattern-based approach shows high reproducibility across multiple measurements and participants, identifying these areas as multivariate regions of interest (mROI). We then perform a representational similarity analysis (RSA) of an fMRI dataset where participants made familiarity judgments on written words. We also compare those results to univariate regions of interest (uROI) taken from previous sentences > pseudowords contrasts. RSA with word stimuli defined in terms of their semantic distance showed greater correspondence with neural patterns in mROI than uROI. This was confirmed in two independent datasets, one involving single-word recognition, and the other focused on the meaning of noun-noun phrases by contrasting meaningful phrases > pseudowords. In all cases, areas of spatial overlap between mROI and uROI showed the greatest neural association. This suggests that ROIs defined in terms of multivariate reproducibility can help localize components of language such as semantics. The multivariate approach can also be extended to focus on other aspects of language such as phonology, and can be used along with the univariate approach for inclusively mapping language cortex.
Funder
National Institutes of Health
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference106 articles.
1. Agarwal S, Sair HI, Gujar S, Pillai JJ (2019) Language mapping with fMRI: current standards and reproducibility. Top Magn Reson Imaging 28(4):225–233
2. Alexander MP (2003) Aphasia: clinical and anatomic issues. In: Feinberg TE, Farah MJ (eds) Behavioral neurology and neuropsychology, Second edn. McGraw-Hill, pp 147–164
3. Altarriba J, Bauer LM, Benvenuto C (1999) Concreteness, context availability, and imageability ratings and word associations for abstract, concrete, and emotion words. Behav Res Methods Instruments Computers 31:578–602
4. Baayen RH, Piepenbrock R, Gulikers L (1995) The CELEX lexical database (2.5 ed.) [CD-ROM]. Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania. http://celex.mpi.nl
5. Balota DA, Cortese MJ, Sergent-Marshall SD, Spieler DH, Yap MJ (2004) Visual word recognition of single-syllable words. J Exp Psychol Gen 133(2):283–316