↓ Skip to main content

The Localization of Long-Distance Dependency Components: Integrating the Focal-lesion and Neuroimaging Record

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Localization of Long-Distance Dependency Components: Integrating the Focal-lesion and Neuroimaging Record
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, September 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01434
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maria M. Piñango, Emily Finn, Cheryl Lacadie, R. Todd Constable

Abstract

In the sentence "The captain who the sailor greeted is tall," the connection between the relative pronoun and the object position of greeted represents a long-distance dependency (LDD), necessary for the interpretation of "the captain" as the individual being greeted. Whereas the lesion-based record shows preferential involvement of only the left inferior frontal (LIF) cortex, associated with Broca's aphasia, during real-time comprehension of LDDs, the neuroimaging record shows additional involvement of the left posterior superior temporal (LPST) and lower parietal cortices, which are associated with Wernicke's aphasia. We test the hypothesis that this localization incongruence emerges from an interaction of memory and linguistic constraints involved in the real-time implementation of these dependencies and which had not been previously isolated. Capitalizing on a long-standing psycholinguistic understanding of LDDs as the workings of an active filler, we distinguish two linguistically defined mechanisms: GAP-search, triggered by the retrieval of the relative pronoun, and GAP-completion, triggered by the retrieval of the embedded verb. Each mechanism is hypothesized to have distinct memory demands and given their distinct linguistic import, potentially distinct brain correlates. Using fMRI, we isolate the two mechanisms by analyzing their relevant sentential segments as separate events. We manipulate LDD-presence/absence and GAP-search type (direct/indirect) reflecting the absence/presence of intervening islands. Results show a direct GAP-search-LIF cortex correlation that crucially excludes the LPST cortex. Notably, indirect GAP-search recruitment is confined to supplementary-motor and lower-parietal cortex indicating that GAP presence alone is not enough to engage predictive functions in the LIF cortex. Finally, GAP-completion shows recruitment implicating the dorsal pathway including: the supplementary motor cortex, left supramarginal cortex, precuneus, and anterior/dorsal cingulate. Altogether, the results are consistent with previous findings connecting GAP-search, as we define it, to the LIF cortex. They are not consistent with an involvement of the LPST cortex in any of the two mechanisms, and therefore support the view that the LPST cortex is not crucial to LDD implementation. Finally, results support neurocognitive architectures that involve the dorsal pathway in LDD resolution and that distinguish the memory commitments of the LIF cortex as sensitive to specific language-dependent constraints beyond phrase-structure building considerations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 28%
Student > Master 6 17%
Student > Bachelor 5 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Lecturer 2 6%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 6 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Linguistics 13 36%
Psychology 8 22%
Neuroscience 5 14%
Unknown 10 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 November 2022.
All research outputs
#17,593,170
of 25,791,495 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#21,554
of 34,791 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#216,933
of 332,010 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#318
of 437 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,791,495 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,791 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.5. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 332,010 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 437 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.