Back

Functional identification of language-responsive channels in individual participants in MEG investigations

Bruffaerts, R.; Pongos, A.; Shain, C.; Lipkin, B.; Siegelman, M.; Wens, V.; Sjogard, M.; Pantazis, D.; Blank, I.; Goldman, S.; De Tiege, X.; Fedorenko, E.

2023-03-23 neuroscience
10.1101/2023.03.23.533424 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Making meaningful inferences about the functional architecture of the language system requires the ability to refer to the same neural units across individuals and studies. Traditional brain imaging approaches align and average brains together in a common space. However, lateral frontal and temporal cortices, where the language system resides, is characterized by high structural and functional inter-individual variability, which reduces the sensitivity and functional resolution of group-averaging analyses. This issue is compounded by the fact that language areas lay in close proximity to regions of other large-scale networks with different functional profiles. A solution inspired by visual neuroscience is to identify language areas functionally in each individual brain using a localizer task (e.g., a language comprehension task). This approach has proven productive in fMRI, yielding a number of robust and replicable findings about the language system. Here, we extend this approach to MEG. Across two experiments (one in Dutch speakers, n=19; one in English speakers, n=23), we examined neural responses to the processing of sentences and a control condition (nonword sequences). In both the time and frequency domains, we demonstrated that the topography of neural responses to language is spatially stable within individuals but varies across individuals. Consequently, analyses that take this inter-individual variability into account are characterized by greater sensitivity, compared to the group-level analyses. In summary, similar to fMRI, functional identification within individuals yields benefits in MEG, thus opening the door to future investigations of language processing including questions where whole-brain coverage and temporal resolution are both critical.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"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.