Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29051908›Full record

ArticleLanguage, cognition and neuroscience2017

Lesion-symptom mapping in the study of spoken language understanding.

Stephen M Wilson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Language, cognition and neuroscience, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
–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

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Lesions Reveal Shared and Distinct Neurocognitive Bases of Oral Reading and Silent Word Recognition.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Current Clinical Applications of Structural MRI in Neurological Disorders.Journal of clinical neurology (Seoul, Korea) · 2025
    Review
  4. Artificial intelligence and stroke imaging.Current opinion in neurology · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Recovery from aphasia in the first year after stroke.Brain : a journal of neurology · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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.

Stephen M WilsonDepartment of Hearing and Speech Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center.

Funding

Neural Correlates of Recovery from Aphasia After StrokeR01DC013270 · NIDCD · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI Stephen M Wilson, Michael R de Riesthal · 2014 to 2026
$6.3M
NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC013270
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Lesion-symptom mapping studies aim to make inferences about the functional neuroanatomy of spoken language understanding by investigating relationships between damage to different brain regions and the various speech perception and comprehension deficits that result. Voxel-based lesion-symptom mapping (VLSM), voxel-based morphometry (VBM), and studies focused on specific cortical regions of interest or fiber pathways have all yielded insights regarding the localization of different components of spoken language processing. Major challenges include the fact that brain damage rarely impacts just a single brain region or just a single processing component, and that neuroplasticity and recovery can complicate the interpretation of lesion-deficit correlations. Future studies involving large patient cohorts derived from multi-center projects, and multivariate approaches to quantifying patterns of brain damage and patterns of linguistic deficits, will continue to yield new insights into the neural basis of spoken language understanding.

Identifiers

PMID29051908
PMCPMC5642290

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.