ArticleThe Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience2015
A trade-off between somatosensory and auditory related brain activity during object naming but not reading.
Article in The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Constraining current neuroanatomical models of reading: the view from Arabic.Brain structure & function · 2024Review
- Neural Development of Speech Sensorimotor Learning.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2021Article
- Cortical Regions Activated by Spectrally Degraded Speech in Adults With Single Sided Deafness or Bilateral Normal Hearing.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2021Article
- Mapping typical and hypokinetic dysarthric speech production network using a connected speech paradigm in functional MRI.NeuroImage. Clinical · 2020Article
- Interpreting and Utilising Intersubject Variability in Brain Function.Trends in cognitive sciences · 2018Review
- Connectivity profiles of the insular network for speech control in healthy individuals and patients with spasmodic dysphonia.Brain structure & function · 2018Article
- Altered functional connectivity differs in stroke survivors with impaired touch sensation following left and right hemisphere lesions.NeuroImage. Clinical · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The parietal operculum, particularly the cytoarchitectonic area OP1 of the secondary somatosensory area (SII), is involved in somatosensory feedback. Using fMRI with 58 human subjects, we investigated task-dependent differences in SII/OP1 activity during three familiar speech production tasks: object naming, reading and repeatedly saying "1-2-3." Bilateral SII/OP1 was significantly suppressed (relative to rest) during object naming, to a lesser extent when repeatedly saying "1-2-3" and not at all during reading. These results cannot be explained by task difficulty but the contrasting difference between naming and reading illustrates how the demands on somatosensory activity change with task, even when motor output (i.e., production of object names) is matched. To investigate what determined SII/OP1 deactivation during object naming, we searched the whole brain for areas where activity increased as that in SII/OP1 decreased. This across subject covariance analysis revealed a region in the right superior temporal sulcus (STS) that lies within the auditory cortex, and is activated by auditory feedback during speech production. The tradeoff between activity in SII/OP1 and STS was not observed during reading, which showed significantly more activation than naming in both SII/OP1 and STS bilaterally. These findings suggest that, although object naming is more error prone than reading, subjects can afford to rely more or less on somatosensory or auditory feedback during naming. In contrast, fast and efficient error-free reading places more consistent demands on both types of feedback, perhaps because of the potential for increased competition between lexical and sublexical codes at the articulatory level.
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.