ArticlePeerJ2014
No population bias to left-hemisphere language in 4-year-olds with language impairment.
Article in PeerJ, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 13 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 39 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patterns of Language and Visuospatial Lateralisation and Cognitive Ability in Young Children Aged 4-7 Years.Developmental science · 2026Article
- Revisiting atypical language lateralization in dyslexia.Brain communications · 2025Article
- Generalized models for estimating cerebral lateralisation of young children using functional transcranial Doppler ultrasound.Human brain mapping · 2024Article
- Approaches to Measuring Language Lateralisation: An Exploratory Study Comparing Two fMRI Methods and Functional Transcranial Doppler Ultrasound.Neurobiology of language (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2024Article
- Investigation into inconsistent lateralisation of language functions as a potential risk factor for language impairment.The European journal of neuroscience · 2020Article
- Cerebral lateralisation during signed and spoken language production in children born deaf.Developmental cognitive neuroscience · 2019Article
- Stage 2 Registered Report: There is no appreciable relationship between strength of hand preference and language ability in 6- to 7-year-old children.Wellcome open research · 2019Article
- Stage 1 Registered Report: The relationship between handedness and language ability in children.Wellcome open research · 2019Article
- An Individualized Approach to Neuroplasticity After Early Unilateral Brain Damage.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2019Article
- Mirror-Image Equivalence and Interhemispheric Mirror-Image Reversal.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2018Article
- Resounding failure to replicate links between developmental language disorder and cerebral lateralisation.PeerJ · 2018Article
- Prefrontal Hemodynamics in Toddlers at Rest: A Pilot Study of Developmental Variability.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2017Article
- Hemispheric speech lateralisation in the developing brain is related to motor praxis ability.Developmental cognitive neuroscience · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Background. An apparent paradox in the field of neuropsychology is that people with atypical cerebral lateralization do not appear to suffer any cognitive disadvantage, yet atypical cerebral lateralization is more common in children and adults with developmental language disorders. This study was designed to explore possible reasons for this puzzling pattern of results. Methods. We used functional transcranial Doppler ultrasound (fTCD) to assess cerebral blood flow during language production in 57 four-year-olds, including 15 children who had been late-talkers when first seen at 20 months of age. We categorized cerebral lateralization as left, right or bilateral, and compared proportions with each type of laterality with those seen in a previously tested sample of children aged 6-16 years. We also compared language scores at 4 years for those with typical and atypical lateralization, and then looked at the association the opposite way: comparing those with typical or impaired language in terms of their cerebral lateralization. Results. The distribution of types of cerebral lateralization was similar for 4-year-olds to that seen in older children. Overall, cerebral lateralization was not predictive of language level. However, for children who had language difficulties at 20 months and/or 4 years (N = 21), there was no population bias to left-hemisphere language activation, whereas children without language problems at either age showed a pronounced bias to left-sided language lateralization. Nevertheless, many children with right hemisphere language had no indications of language difficulties, confirming that atypical cerebral asymmetry is not a direct cause of problems. Conclusions. We suggest that atypical lateralization at the individual level is not associated with language impairment. However, lack of lateralization at the population level is a marker of risk for language impairment, which could be due to genetic or non-genetic causes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.