Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41178937›Full record

ArticleImaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)2025

Abstract rule generalization for composing novel meaning recruits a frontoparietal control network.

Xiaochen Y Zheng, Mona M Garvert, Hanneke E M den Ouden, Lisa I Horstman, David Richter, Roshan Cools

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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.

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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

6 authors.

Xiaochen Y ZhengDonders Center for Cognitive Neuroimaging, Radboud University, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3697-3395
Mona M GarvertJulius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg, Faculty of Human Sciences, Würzburg, Germany.
Hanneke E M den OudenDonders Center for Cognition, Radboud University, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Lisa I HorstmanRadboud University Medical Center, Department of Psychiatry, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
David RichterDonders Center for Cognitive Neuroimaging, Radboud University, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Roshan CoolsDonders Center for Cognitive Neuroimaging, Radboud University, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

abstract rule learningcognitive controlcompositional generalizationfrontoparietal networklinguistic inferencerepresentational similarity analysis

Identifiers

PMID41178937
PMCPMC12573890

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.