In Search of a New Paradigm for Functional Magnetic Resonance Experimentation With Language

Overview

Journal Front Neurol

Specialty Neurology

Date 2020 Jul 17

PMID 32670188

Authors

Maria Eugenia Arantes

Fernando Cendes

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Human language can convey a broad range of entities and relationships through processes that are highly complex and structured. All of these processes are happening somewhere inside our brains, and one way of precising these locations is through the usage of the functional magnetic resonance imaging. The great obstacle when experimenting with complex processes, however, is the need to control them while still having data that are representative of reality. When it comes to language, an interactional phenomenon in its nature, and that integrates a wide range of processes, a question emerges concerning how compatible it is with the current experimental methodology, and how much of it is lost in order to fit the controlled experimental environment. Because of its particularities, the fMRI technique imposes several limitations to the expression of language during experimentation. This paper discusses the different conceptions of language as a research object, the hardships of combining this object with the requirements of fMRI, and what are the current perspectives for this field of research.

References

Pickering M, Garrod S . Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behav Brain Sci. 2004; 27(2):169-90. DOI: 10.1017/s0140525x04000056. View

Woollams A, Silani G, Okada K, Patterson K, Price C . Word or word-like? Dissociating orthographic typicality from lexicality in the left occipito-temporal cortex. J Cogn Neurosci. 2010; 23(4):992-1002. PMC: 4753674. DOI: 10.1162/jocn.2010.21502. View

Friederici A, Kotz S, Scott S, Obleser J . Disentangling syntax and intelligibility in auditory language comprehension. Hum Brain Mapp. 2009; 31(3):448-57. PMC: 6870868. DOI: 10.1002/hbm.20878. View

Pulvermuller F . Agrammatism: behavioral description and neurobiological explanation. J Cogn Neurosci. 2013; 7(2):165-81. DOI: 10.1162/jocn.1995.7.2.165. View

Wiethoff S, Wildgruber D, Grodd W, Ethofer T . Response and habituation of the amygdala during processing of emotional prosody. Neuroreport. 2009; 20(15):1356-60. DOI: 10.1097/WNR.0b013e328330eb83. View

Pulvermuller F . Brain embodiment of syntax and grammar: discrete combinatorial mechanisms spelt out in neuronal circuits. Brain Lang. 2010; 112(3):167-79. DOI: 10.1016/j.bandl.2009.08.002. View

Egorova N, Shtyrov Y, Pulvermuller F . Brain basis of communicative actions in language. Neuroimage. 2015; 125:857-867. PMC: 4692511. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.10.055. View

Skipper J, Goldin-Meadow S, Nusbaum H, Small S . Gestures orchestrate brain networks for language understanding. Curr Biol. 2009; 19(8):661-7. PMC: 3767135. DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2009.02.051. View

Friederici A, Chomsky N, Berwick R, Moro A, Bolhuis J . Language, mind and brain. Nat Hum Behav. 2019; 1(10):713-722. DOI: 10.1038/s41562-017-0184-4. View

10.

Duffau H . The error of Broca: From the traditional localizationist concept to a connectomal anatomy of human brain. J Chem Neuroanat. 2017; 89:73-81. DOI: 10.1016/j.jchemneu.2017.04.003. View

11.

Almagro Y, Sanchez-Casas R, Garcia-Albea J . [Agrammatism and its symptoms]. Rev Neurol. 2005; 40(6):369-80. View

12.

Price C . The anatomy of language: a review of 100 fMRI studies published in 2009. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2010; 1191:62-88. DOI: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2010.05444.x. View

13.

Tam F, Churchill N, Strother S, Graham S . A new tablet for writing and drawing during functional MRI. Hum Brain Mapp. 2010; 32(2):240-8. PMC: 6870006. DOI: 10.1002/hbm.21013. View

14.

Alsius A, Pare M, Munhall K . Forty Years After Hearing Lips and Seeing Voices: the McGurk Effect Revisited. Multisens Res. 2019; 31(1-2):111-144. DOI: 10.1163/22134808-00002565. View

15.

Sonkusare S, Breakspear M, Guo C . Naturalistic Stimuli in Neuroscience: Critically Acclaimed. Trends Cogn Sci. 2019; 23(8):699-714. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2019.05.004. View

16.

Murdoch B . The cerebellum and language: historical perspective and review. Cortex. 2009; 46(7):858-68. DOI: 10.1016/j.cortex.2009.07.018. View

17.

Hauser M, Chomsky N, Fitch W . The faculty of language: what is it, who has it, and how did it evolve?. Science. 2002; 298(5598):1569-79. DOI: 10.1126/science.298.5598.1569. View

18.

Hocking J, McMahon K, de Zubicaray G . Semantic interference in object naming: an fMRI study of the postcue naming paradigm. Neuroimage. 2010; 50(2):796-801. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.12.067. View

19.

Vodrahalli K, Chen P, Liang Y, Baldassano C, Chen J, Yong E . Mapping between fMRI responses to movies and their natural language annotations. Neuroimage. 2017; 180(Pt A):223-231. PMC: 5742073. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.06.042. View

20.

Peramunage D, Blumstein S, Myers E, Goldrick M, Baese-Berk M . Phonological neighborhood effects in spoken word production: an fMRI study. J Cogn Neurosci. 2010; 23(3):593-603. PMC: 2898911. DOI: 10.1162/jocn.2010.21489. View