Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32569894›Full record

ArticleCognition2020

Lack of selectivity for syntax relative to word meanings throughout the language network.

Evelina Fedorenko, Idan Asher Blank, Matthew Siegelman, Zachary Mineroff

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cognition, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 97 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
97citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

97 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Do Language Models Know Who Did What to Whom?Open mind : discoveries in cognitive science · 2026
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

37 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

4 authors.

Evelina FedorenkoDepartment of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA; McGovern Institute for Brain Research, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA. Electronic address: evelina9@mit.edu.
Idan Asher BlankDepartment of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA; Department of Psychology, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA.
Matthew SiegelmanDepartment of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA; Department of Psychology, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027, USA.
Zachary MineroffDepartment of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA; Eberly Center for Teaching Excellence & Educational Innovation, CMU, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, 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

To understand what you are reading now, your mind retrieves the meanings of words and constructions from a linguistic knowledge store (lexico-semantic processing) and identifies the relationships among them to construct a complex meaning (syntactic or combinatorial processing). Do these two sets of processes rely on distinct, specialized mechanisms or, rather, share a common pool of resources? Linguistic theorizing, empirical evidence from language acquisition and processing, and computational modeling have jointly painted a picture whereby lexico-semantic and syntactic processing are deeply inter-connected and perhaps not separable. In contrast, many current proposals of the neural architecture of language continue to endorse a view whereby certain brain regions selectively support syntactic/combinatorial processing, although the locus of such "syntactic hub", and its nature, vary across proposals. Here, we searched for selectivity for syntactic over lexico-semantic processing using a powerful individual-subjects fMRI approach across three sentence comprehension paradigms that have been used in prior work to argue for such selectivity: responses to lexico-semantic vs. morpho-syntactic violations (Experiment 1); recovery from neural suppression across pairs of sentences differing in only lexical items vs. only syntactic structure (Experiment 2); and same/different meaning judgments on such sentence pairs (Experiment 3). Across experiments, both lexico-semantic and syntactic conditions elicited robust responses throughout the left fronto-temporal language network. Critically, however, no regions were more strongly engaged by syntactic than lexico-semantic processing, although some regions showed the opposite pattern. Thus, contra many current proposals of the neural architecture of language, syntactic/combinatorial processing is not separable from lexico-semantic processing at the level of brain regions-or even voxel subsets-within the language network, in line with strong integration between these two processes that has been consistently observed in behavioral and computational language research. The results further suggest that the language network may be generally more strongly concerned with meaning than syntactic form, in line with the primary function of language-to share meanings across minds.

Indexed as

LanguageSemanticsBrainBrain MappingComprehensionHumansLinguisticsMagnetic Resonance ImagingReadingCognitive neuroscienceCompositionLanguage architectureLexical semanticsSyntax

Identifiers

PMID32569894
PMCPMC7483589

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.