ArticleCerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991)2026
Language laterality and cognitive skills: does anatomy matter?
Article in Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991), 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Brain anatomy, particularly white matter microstructure, is thought to play a critical role in the relationships between cognitive function and language lateralisation. This study investigates whether white matter microstructural parameters of the arcuate fasciculus and corpus callosum is associated with cognitive performance across distinct language lateralisation groups. Neuroimaging and cognitive data from 279 healthy adults were sourced from the BIL&GIN database. Participants completed a sentence production functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) task, diffusion MRI, and cognitive tasks assessing verbal, visuospatial, and arithmetic skills. Significant positive associations were observed in strongly atypical individuals between fractional anisotropy in the splenium and working memory (R2 = 0.96, pFDR = 0.042) and between fractional anisotropy (FA) in the genu and visuospatial attention (R2 = 0.92, pFDR = 0.042). ANCOVA revealed that cross-dominant individuals had significantly lower visuospatial attention scores compared to consistently lateralized individuals (pFDR = 0.02). These findings challenge the notion that atypical lateralisation is inherently maladaptive and suggest that white matter pathways may serve as an alternative mechanism for supporting cognitive function in individuals with rightward language dominance. Furthermore, the results highlight the cognitive disadvantages of crossed dominance, implicating disrupted interhemispheric communication as a potential underlying mechanism.
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.