Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32407994›Full record

ArticleNeuroImage2020

No evidence for differences among language regions in their temporal receptive windows.

Idan A Blank, Evelina Fedorenko

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NeuroImage, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05222594 (Computational Neuroscience of Language Processing in the Human Brain), which is not on this map. Cited by 45 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing 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.

NCT05222594 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Computational Neuroscience of Language Processing in the Human Brain

TypeinterventionalSponsorMassachusetts General HospitalRan2021 to 2027Enrolled40ConditionsLanguage, EpilepsyArmsBehavioral tasks during intracranial monitoring
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

45 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. A distinct set of brain areas process prosody-the melody of speech.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

2 authors.

Idan A BlankDepartment of Brain and Cognitive Sciences and McGovern Institute for Brain Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA. Electronic address: iblank@psych.ucla.edu.
Evelina FedorenkoDepartment of Brain and Cognitive Sciences and McGovern Institute for Brain Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA.

Funding

Functional reorganization of the language and domain-general multiple demand systems in aphasiaR01DC016950 · NIDCD · BOSTON UNIVERSITY (CHARLES RIVER CAMPUS) · PI FEDORENKO, EVELINA, KIRAN, SWATHI · 2019 to 2023
$3.2M
The neural architecture of pragmatic processingR01DC016607 · NIDCD · MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY · PI FEDORENKO, EVELINA · 2018 to 2022
$2.4M
fMRI investigations of the functional architecture of the language systemR00HD057522 · NICHD · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI FEDORENKO, EVELINA · 2014 to 2016
$738k
NICHD NIH HHS R00 HD057522NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC016607NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC016950
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The "core language network" consists of left frontal and temporal regions that are selectively engaged in linguistic processing. Whereas functional differences among these regions have long been debated, many accounts propose distinctions in terms of representational grain-size-e.g., words vs. phrases/sentences-or processing time-scale, i.e., operating on local linguistic features vs. larger spans of input. Indeed, the topography of language regions appears to overlap with a cortical hierarchy reported by Lerner et al. (2011) wherein mid-posterior temporal regions are sensitive to low-level features of speech, surrounding areas-to word-level information, and inferior frontal areas-to sentence-level information and beyond. However, the correspondence between the language network and this hierarchy of "temporal receptive windows" (TRWs) is difficult to establish because the precise anatomical locations of language regions vary across individuals. To directly test this correspondence, we first identified language regions in each participant with a well-validated task-based localizer, which confers high functional resolution to the study of TRWs (traditionally based on stereotactic coordinates); then, we characterized regional TRWs with the naturalistic story listening paradigm of Lerner et al. (2011), which augments task-based characterizations of the language network by more closely resembling comprehension "in the wild". We find no region-by-TRW interactions across temporal and inferior frontal regions, which are all sensitive to both word-level and sentence-level information. Therefore, the language network as a whole constitutes a unique stage of information integration within a broader cortical hierarchy.

Indexed as

LanguageAdolescentAdultBrainBrain MappingComprehensionFemaleHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedNerve NetSpeechSpeech PerceptionYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID32407994
PMCPMC9392830

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

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.