ReviewFrontiers in human neuroscience2026
Broca's biases in modern aphasiology.
Review in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Broca's description of aphemia signals the emergence of aphasiology as a discipline. It also marks the beginning of a long tradition of studies of right-handed patients ("Nous parlons avec l'hémisphère gauche") with lesions in the inferior frontal gyrus (Broca's area) displaying production deficits (Broca's aphasia) in their single, mainly Romance or, as years went by, Germanic language. In modern-day aphasiology, language crosses hemispheric boundaries, production is no longer confined to the left inferior frontal gyrus, and lesions in Broca's area do not necessarily entail Broca's aphasia, with recognized production deficits associated with other lesion locations and aphasia types. Nonetheless, idealized monolingual speakers are still at the center of most theories and shape the design of clinical materials. In this paper, we address two key questions Broca left unanswered: (1) How well do current linguistic theories accommodate the diversity of typologies in the nearly 7,000 languages of the world? and (2) How adequate are our clinical resources for the assessment and treatment needs of multilingual individuals? After an introduction, we will discuss crosslinguistic contributions to the development of modern aphasiology in section 2. Section 3 will focus on multilingual aphasia studies.
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.