ArticleImaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)2025
Abstract rule generalization for composing novel meaning recruits a frontoparietal control network.
Article in Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The compositionality continuum as a principle for studying the neural basis of intelligence.Nature neuroscience · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The ability to generalize previously learned knowledge to novel situations is crucial for adaptive behavior, representing a form of cognitive flexibility that is particularly relevant in language. Humans excel at combining linguistic building blocks to infer the meanings of novel compositional words, such as "un-reject-able-ish". The neural mechanisms and representations required for this ability remain unclear. To unravel these, we trained participants on a semi-artificial language in which the meanings of compositional words could be derived from known stems and unknown affixes, using abstract relational structure rules (e.g., "good-kla" which means "bad", where "-kla" reverses the meaning of the stem word "good"). According to these rules, word meaning depended on the sequential relation between the stem and the affix (i.e., pre- vs. post-stem). During fMRI, participants performed a semantic priming task, with novel compositional words as either sequential order congruent (e.g., "short-kla") or incongruent primes (e.g., "kla-short"), and real words serving as targets that were synonyms of the composed meaning of the congruent primes (e.g., "long"). Our results show that the compositional process engaged a broad temporoparietal network, while representations of composed word meaning were localized in a more circumscribed left-lateralized language network. Strikingly, newly composed meanings were decodable already at the time of the prime in a way that could not be accounted for representations of the prime words themselves. Finally, we found that the composition process recruited abstract rule representations in a bilateral frontoparietal network, in contrast to our preregistered prediction of a medial prefrontal-hippocampal network. These results support the hypothesis that people activate a bilateral frontoparietal circuitry for compositional inference and generalization in language.
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.