Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28656532›Full record

ReviewCurrent neurology and neuroscience reports2017

Current Controversies on Wernicke's Area and its Role in Language.

Jeffrey R Binder

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current neurology and neuroscience reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 85 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
85citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

85 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Visualization of functional and effective connectivity underlying auditory descriptive naming.Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

25 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Jeffrey R BinderDepartments of Neurology and Biophysics, Medical College of Wisconsin, 9200 W. Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, WI, 53226, USA. jbinder@mcw.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewThe aim of the study is to assess historical anatomical and functional definitions of Wernicke's area in light of modern lesion and neuroimaging data. RECENT

findings"Wernicke's area" has become an anatomical label usually applied to the left posterior superior temporal gyrus and adjacent supramarginal gyrus. Recent evidence shows that this region is not critical for speech perception or for word comprehension. Rather, it supports retrieval of phonological forms (mental representations of phoneme sequences), which are used for speech output and short-term memory tasks. Focal damage to this region produces phonemic paraphasia without impairing word comprehension, i.e., conduction aphasia. Neuroimaging studies in recent decades provide evidence for a widely distributed temporal, parietal, and frontal network supporting language comprehension, which does not include the anatomically defined Wernicke area. The term Wernicke's area, if used at all, should not be used to refer to a zone critical for speech comprehension.

Indexed as

LanguageAphasia, WernickeComprehensionHumansMemory, Short-TermNeural PathwaysSpeech PerceptionWernicke AreaMiddle temporal gyrusPhonologySemantic memorySuperior temporal gyrusWernicke aphasia

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.