ReviewCognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience2025
The role of variation in phonological and semantic working memory capacities in sentence comprehension: neural evidence from healthy and brain-damaged individuals.
Review in Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Recitation Mode Is Associated With Salivary CREB and Cortisol Responses during Qur'anic Recitation.Brain and behavior · 2026Article
- Mapping the neural correlates of the effect of psycholinguistic variables on picture naming performance: a FDG-PET study across neurodegenerative diseases.Alzheimer's research & therapy · 2025Article
- Introduction to the special issue on individual differences in memory modulation.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2025Article
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
Research on the role of working memory (WM) in language processing has typically focused on WM for phonological information. However, considerable behavioral evidence supports the existence of a separate semantic WM system that plays a greater role in language processing. We review the neural evidence that supports the distinction between phonological and semantic WM capacities and discuss how individual differences in these capacities relate to sentence processing. In terms of neural substrates, findings from multivariate functional MRI for healthy participants and voxel-based lesion-symptom mapping for brain-damaged participants imply that the left supramarginal gyrus supports phonological WM, whereas the left inferior frontal gyrus (LIFG) and angular gyrus support semantic WM. In sentence comprehension, individual variation in semantic but not phonological WM related to performance in resolving semantic information and the LIFG region implicated in semantic WM showed fMRI activation during the resolution of semantic interference. Moreover, variation for brain-damaged participants in the integrity of a fiber tract supporting semantic WM had a greater relation to the processing of complex sentences than did the integrity of fiber tracts supporting phonological WM. Overall, the neural findings provide converging evidence regarding the distinction of these two capacities and the greater contribution of individual differences in semantic than phonological WM capacity to sentence processing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39271594What 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.