ReviewNeuropsychology review2015
Insights into the genetic foundations of human communication.
Review in Neuropsychology review, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- The value of genomic testing in severe childhood speech disorders.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2024Article
- Precision Medicine as a New Frontier in Speech-Language Pathology: How Applying Insights From Behavior Genomics Can Improve Outcomes in Communication Disorders.American journal of speech-language pathology · 2023Article
- Article
- Language Impairment with a Partial Duplication ofMolecular syndromology · 2020Article
- Robust Candidates for Language Development and Evolution Are Significantly Dysregulated in the Blood of People With Williams Syndrome.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2019Article
- Williams Syndrome, Human Self-Domestication, and Language Evolution.Frontiers in psychology · 2019Article
- A Diagnostic Marker to Discriminate Childhood Apraxia of Speech From Speech Delay: I. Development and Description of the Pause Marker.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2017Review
- Evolution of language: Lessons from the genome.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2017Article
- Talking Convergence: Growing Evidence Links FOXP2 and Retinoic Acid in Shaping Speech-Related Motor Circuitry.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2017Article
- Cognitive, Linguistic, and Motor Abilities in a Multigenerational Family with Childhood Apraxia of Speech.Archives of clinical neuropsychology : the official journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The human capacity to acquire sophisticated language is unmatched in the animal kingdom. Despite the discontinuity in communicative abilities between humans and other primates, language is built on ancient genetic foundations, which are being illuminated by comparative genomics. The genetic architecture of the language faculty is also being uncovered by research into neurodevelopmental disorders that disrupt the normally effortless process of language acquisition. In this article, we discuss the strategies that researchers are using to reveal genetic factors contributing to communicative abilities, and review progress in identifying the relevant genes and genetic variants. The first gene directly implicated in a speech and language disorder was FOXP2. Using this gene as a case study, we illustrate how evidence from genetics, molecular cell biology, animal models and human neuroimaging has converged to build a picture of the role of FOXP2 in neurodevelopment, providing a framework for future endeavors to bridge the gaps between genes, brains and behavior.
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.