ReviewCognition2018
Grounding the neurobiology of language in first principles: The necessity of non-language-centric explanations for language comprehension.
Review in Cognition, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 63 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
63 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Role of the Right Language Network and the Multiple-Demand Network in Verbal Semantics: Insights From an Activation Likelihood Estimation Meta-Analysis of 561 Functional Neuroimaging Studies.Human brain mapping · 2025Pooled it
- Review
- Speech Neurophysiology in Realistic Contexts: Big Hype or Big Leap?The European journal of neuroscience · 2026Review
- Multi-level language deficits in behavioural frontotemporal degeneration and related disorders.Brain communications · 2026Article
- Hierarchical linguistic predictions and cross-level information updating during narrative comprehension.Communications biology · 2025Article
- Context modulates brain state dynamics and behavioral responses during narrative comprehension.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- You Can Stand Under My Umbrella: Cognitive Load in Second-Language Reading.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Brain activation for language and its relationship to cognitive and linguistic measures.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2025Article
- Understanding discourse in face-to-face settings: The impact of multimodal cues and listening conditions.Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition · 2025Article
- Similarities in semantic processing across verbal and pictorial domains in school children with developmental language disorder.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Ecological brain: reframing the study of human behaviour and cognition.Royal Society open science · 2024Review
- Predicting the next sentence (not word) in large language models: What model-brain alignment tells us about discourse comprehension.Science advances · 2024Article
- The language network as a natural kind within the broader landscape of the human brain.Nature reviews. Neuroscience · 2024Review
- How does the human brain process noisy speech in real life? Insights from the second-person neuroscience perspective.Cognitive neurodynamics · 2024Review
- The neural and cognitive basis of expository text comprehension.NPJ science of learning · 2024Article
- Large-scale evidence for logarithmic effects of word predictability on reading time.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
- The Language Network Reliably "Tracks" Naturalistic Meaningful Nonverbal Stimuli.Neurobiology of language (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2024Article
- Word Frequency and Predictability Dissociate in Naturalistic Reading.Open mind : discoveries in cognitive science · 2024Article
- Multilingualism at the Market: A Pre-registered Immersive Virtual Reality Study of Bilingual Language Switching.Journal of cognition · 2024Article
- A Deep Learning Approach to Analyzing Continuous-Time Cognitive Processes.Open mind : discoveries in cognitive science · 2024Article
3 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Recent decades have ushered in tremendous progress in understanding the neural basis of language. Most of our current knowledge on language and the brain, however, is derived from lab-based experiments that are far removed from everyday language use, and that are inspired by questions originating in linguistic and psycholinguistic contexts. In this paper we argue that in order to make progress, the field needs to shift its focus to understanding the neurobiology of naturalistic language comprehension. We present here a new conceptual framework for understanding the neurobiological organization of language comprehension. This framework is non-language-centered in the computational/neurobiological constructs it identifies, and focuses strongly on context. Our core arguments address three general issues: (i) the difficulty in extending language-centric explanations to discourse; (ii) the necessity of taking context as a serious topic of study, modeling it formally and acknowledging the limitations on external validity when studying language comprehension outside context; and (iii) the tenuous status of the language network as an explanatory construct. We argue that adopting this framework means that neurobiological studies of language will be less focused on identifying correlations between brain activity patterns and mechanisms postulated by psycholinguistic theories. Instead, they will be less self-referential and increasingly more inclined towards integration of language with other cognitive systems, ultimately doing more justice to the neurobiological organization of language and how it supports language as it is used in everyday life.
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.