Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34301824›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience2021

Neural Fingerprints Underlying Individual Language Learning Profiles.

Gangyi Feng, Jinghua Ou, Zhenzhong Gan, Xiaoyan Jia, Danting Meng, Suiping Wang, Patrick C M Wong

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 4 countries.

Gangyi FengDepartment of Linguistics and Modern Languages, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, N.T, Hong Kong SAR, China g.feng@cuhk.edu.hk p.wong@cuhk.edu.hk.
Jinghua OuDepartment of Linguistics, University of Chicago, Chicago, 60637, Illinois.
Zhenzhong GanDepartment of Linguistics and Modern Languages, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, N.T, Hong Kong SAR, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5740-8758
Xiaoyan JiaKey Laboratory of Brain, Cognition and Education Sciences, Ministry of Education, China; School of Psychology, Center for Studies of Psychological Application, and Guangdong Key Laboratory of Mental Health and Cognitive Science, South China Normal University, 510631, China.
Danting MengKey Laboratory of Brain, Cognition and Education Sciences, Ministry of Education, China; School of Psychology, Center for Studies of Psychological Application, and Guangdong Key Laboratory of Mental Health and Cognitive Science, South China Normal University, 510631, China.
Suiping WangKey Laboratory of Brain, Cognition and Education Sciences, Ministry of Education, China; School of Psychology, Center for Studies of Psychological Application, and Guangdong Key Laboratory of Mental Health and Cognitive Science, South China Normal University, 510631, China.
Patrick C M WongDepartment of Linguistics and Modern Languages, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, N.T, Hong Kong SAR, China g.feng@cuhk.edu.hk p.wong@cuhk.edu.hk.
Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China · CNChinese University of Hong Kong · HKUniversity of Illinois Chicago · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Human language learning differs significantly across individuals in the process and ultimate attainment. Although decades of research exploring the neural substrates of language learning have identified distinct and overlapping neural networks subserving learning of different components, the neural mechanisms that drive the large interindividual differences are still far from being understood. Here we examine to what extent the neural dynamics of multiple brain networks in men and women across sessions of training contribute to explaining individual differences in learning multiple linguistic components (i.e., vocabulary, morphology, and phrase and sentence structures) of an artificial language in a 7 d training and imaging paradigm with functional MRI. With machine-learning and predictive modeling, neural activation patterns across training sessions were highly predictive of individual learning success profiles derived from the four components. We identified four neural learning networks (i.e., the Perisylvian, frontoparietal, salience, and default-mode networks) and examined their dynamic contributions to the learning success prediction. Moreover, the robustness of the predictions systematically changes across networks depending on specific training phases and the learning components. We further demonstrate that a subset of network nodes in the inferior frontal, insular, and frontoparietal regions increasingly represent newly acquired language knowledge, while the multivariate connectivity between these representation regions is enhanced during learning for more successful learners. These findings allow us to understand why learners differ and are the first to attribute not only the degree of success but also patterns of language learning across components, to neural fingerprints summarized from multiple neural network dynamics.

Indexed as

Brain MappingIndividualityLanguage DevelopmentAdultCerebral CortexConnectomeDefault Mode NetworkFemaleHumansLanguageLanguage TestsLearningMachine LearningMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMemory, Long-Termindividual differenceslanguage learningneural fingerprintneural network dynamicspredictive modeling

Identifiers

PMID34301824
PMCPMC8412988
OpenAlexW3184725823

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.