Linguistic input drives brain network configuration during language comprehension.
Quinones, I.; Molinaro, N.; Caballero Gaudes, C.; Mancini, S.; Hernandez-Cabrera, J. A.; Barber, H.; Carreiras, M.
Show abstract
Assessing the synchrony and interplay between distributed neural regions is critical to understanding how language is processed. Here, we investigated possible neuro-functional links between form and meaning during sentence comprehension combining a classical whole-brain approach, which characterizes patterns of brain activation resulting from our experimental manipulation, and a novel multivariate network-based approach, which uses graph-theory measures to unravel the architectural configuration of the language system. Capitalizing on the Spanish gender agreement system, we experimentally manipulated formal and conceptual factors: whether the noun-adjective grammatical gender relationship was congruent or not and whether the noun gender type was semantically informative or strictly formal. Left inferior and middle frontal gyri, as well as left MTG/STG emerged as critical areas for the computation of grammatical relations. We demonstrate how the interface between formal and conceptual features depends on the synergic articulation of brain areas divided in three subnetworks that extend beyond the classical left-lateralized perisylvian language circuit. Critically, we isolated a subregion of the left angular gyrus showing a significant interaction between gender congruency and gender type. The functional interplay between the angular gyrus and left perisylvian language-specific circuit proves crucial for constructing coherent and meaningful messages. Importantly, using graph theory we show that this complex system is functionally malleable: the role each node plays within the network changes depending on the available linguistic cues. Significance StatementNeural networks can be described as graphs comprising distributed and interconnected nodes. These nodes share functional properties but also differ in terms of functional specialization and the number of interconnections mediating the efficient transfer of information. Previous work has shown functional connectivity differences based on graph-theory properties between typical and atypical samples. However, here we have used concepts from graph theory to characterize connectivity during language processing using task-related fMRI. This approach allowed us to demonstrate how linguistic input drives brain network configuration during language comprehension. This is the first evidence of functional flexibility in language networks: the communicative capacity of each hub changes depending on whether the linguistic input grants access to meaning or is purely formal.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- The neural bases of resilient cognitive systems: Evidence of variable neuro-displacement in the semantic system. 97%
- The organization of individually mapped structural and functional semantic networks in aging adults 95%
- A tale of two gradients: Differences between the left and right hemispheres predict semantic cognition and visual reasoning 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- The convergence and divergence of episodic and semantic functions across lateral parietal cortex 96%
- The "two-brain" approach reveals the positive role of task-deactivated default mode network in narrative speech comprehension 95%
- Attention to speech: Mapping distributed and selective attention systems 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- The prospective sense of agency is rooted in local and global properties of intrinsic functional brain networks 95%
- Large-scale functional integration, rather than functional dissociation along dorsal and ventral streams, underlies visual perception and action 94%
- Hemispheric Asymmetries of Individual Differences in Functional Connectivity 94%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.