Distributed Sensitivity to Syntax and Semantics throughout the Language Network.

Human language is expressive because it is compositional: The meaning of a sentence (semantics) can be inferred from its structure (syntax). It is commonly believed that language syntax and semantics are processed by distinct brain regions. Here, we revisit this claim using precision fMRI methods to capture separation or overlap of function in the brains of individual participants. Contrary to prior claims, we find distributed sensitivity to both syntax and semantics throughout a broad frontotemporal brain network. Our results join a growing body of evidence for an integrated network for language in the human brain within which internal specialization is primarily a matter of degree rather than kind, in contrast with influential proposals that advocate distinct specialization of different brain areas for different types of linguistic functions.

Effects of familiar music exposure on deliberate retrieval of remote episodic and semantic memories in healthy aging adults.

Familiar music facilitates memory retrieval in adults with dementia. However, mechanisms behind this effect, and its generality, are unclear because of a lack of parallel work in healthy aging. Exposure to familiar music enhances spontaneous recall of memories directly cued by the music, but it is unknown whether such effects extend to deliberate recall more generally - e.g., to memories not directly linked to the music being played. It is also unclear whether familiar music boosts recall of specific episodes versus more generalised semantic memories, or whether effects are driven by domain-general mechanisms (e.g., improved mood). In a registered report study, we examined effects of familiar music on deliberate recall in healthy adults ages 65-80 years (N = 75) by presenting familiar music from earlier in life, unfamiliar music, and non-musical audio clips across three sessions. After each clip, we assessed free recall of remote memories for pre-selected events. Contrary to our hypotheses, we found no effects of music exposure on recall of prompted events, though familiar music evoked spontaneous memories most often. These results suggest that effects of familiar music on recall may be limited to memories specifically evoked in response to the music (Preprint and registered report protocol at https://osf.io/kjnwd/).

The Domain-General Multiple Demand (MD) Network Does Not Support Core Aspects of Language Comprehension: A Large-Scale fMRI Investigation.

Aside from the language-selective left-lateralized frontotemporal network, language comprehension sometimes recruits a domain-general bilateral frontoparietal network implicated in executive functions: the multiple demand (MD) network. However, the nature of the MD network's contributions to language comprehension remains debated. To illuminate the role of this network in language processing in humans, we conducted a large-scale fMRI investigation using data from 30 diverse word and sentence comprehension experiments (481 unique participants [female and male], 678 scanning sessions). In line with prior findings, the MD network was active during many language tasks. Moreover, similar to the language-selective network, which is robustly lateralized to the left hemisphere, these responses were stronger in the left-hemisphere MD regions. However, in contrast with the language-selective network, the MD network responded more strongly (1) to lists of unconnected words than to sentences, and (2) in paradigms with an explicit task compared with passive comprehension paradigms. Indeed, many passive comprehension tasks failed to elicit a response above the fixation baseline in the MD network, in contrast to strong responses in the language-selective network. Together, these results argue against a role for the MD network in core aspects of sentence comprehension, such as inhibiting irrelevant meanings or parses, keeping intermediate representations active in working memory, or predicting upcoming words or structures. These results align with recent evidence of relatively poor tracking of the linguistic signal by the MD regions during naturalistic comprehension, and instead suggest that the MD network's engagement during language processing reflects effort associated with extraneous task demands.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Domain-general executive processes, such as working memory and cognitive control, have long been implicated in language comprehension, including in neuroimaging studies that have reported activation in domain-general multiple demand (MD) regions for linguistic manipulations. However, much prior evidence has come from paradigms where language interpretation is accompanied by extraneous tasks. Using a large fMRI dataset (30 experiments/481 participants/678 sessions), we demonstrate that MD regions are engaged during language comprehension in the presence of task demands, but not during passive reading/listening, conditions that strongly activate the frontotemporal language network. These results present a fundamental challenge to proposals whereby linguistic computations, such as inhibiting irrelevant meanings, keeping representations active in working memory, or predicting upcoming elements, draw on domain-general executive resources.

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

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 cortex, where the language system resides, is characterized by high structural and functional inter-individual variability. This variability reduces the sensitivity and functional resolution of group-averaging analyses. This problem is compounded by the fact that language areas often lay in close proximity to regions of other large-scale networks with different functional profiles. A solution inspired by other fields of cognitive neuroscience (e.g., vision) 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 discoveries about the language system, and has been successfully extended to intracranial recording investigations. Here, we apply 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). We demonstrated that the neural response to language is spatially consistent at the individual level. The language-responsive sensors of interest were, as expected, less responsive to the nonwords condition. Clear inter-individual differences were present in the topography of the neural response to language, leading to greater sensitivity when the data were analyzed at the individual level compared to the group level. Thus, as in fMRI, functional localization yields benefits in MEG and thus opens the door to probing fine-grained distinctions in space and time in future MEG investigations of language processing.

Probabilistic atlas for the language network based on precision fMRI data from >800 individuals.

Two analytic traditions characterize fMRI language research. One relies on averaging activations across individuals. This approach has limitations: because of inter-individual variability in the locations of language areas, any given voxel/vertex in a common brain space is part of the language network in some individuals but in others, may belong to a distinct network. An alternative approach relies on identifying language areas in each individual using a functional 'localizer'. Because of its greater sensitivity, functional resolution, and interpretability, functional localization is gaining popularity, but it is not always feasible, and cannot be applied retroactively to past studies. To bridge these disjoint approaches, we created a probabilistic functional atlas using fMRI data for an extensively validated language localizer in 806 individuals. This atlas enables estimating the probability that any given location in a common space belongs to the language network, and thus can help interpret group-level activation peaks and lesion locations, or select voxels/electrodes for analysis. More meaningful comparisons of findings across studies should increase robustness and replicability in language research.

Lack of selectivity for syntax relative to word meanings throughout the language network.

To understand what you are reading now, your mind retrieves the meanings of words and constructions from a linguistic knowledge store (lexico-semantic processing) and identifies the relationships among them to construct a complex meaning (syntactic or combinatorial processing). Do these two sets of processes rely on distinct, specialized mechanisms or, rather, share a common pool of resources? Linguistic theorizing, empirical evidence from language acquisition and processing, and computational modeling have jointly painted a picture whereby lexico-semantic and syntactic processing are deeply inter-connected and perhaps not separable. In contrast, many current proposals of the neural architecture of language continue to endorse a view whereby certain brain regions selectively support syntactic/combinatorial processing, although the locus of such "syntactic hub", and its nature, vary across proposals. Here, we searched for selectivity for syntactic over lexico-semantic processing using a powerful individual-subjects fMRI approach across three sentence comprehension paradigms that have been used in prior work to argue for such selectivity: responses to lexico-semantic vs. morpho-syntactic violations (Experiment 1); recovery from neural suppression across pairs of sentences differing in only lexical items vs. only syntactic structure (Experiment 2); and same/different meaning judgments on such sentence pairs (Experiment 3). Across experiments, both lexico-semantic and syntactic conditions elicited robust responses throughout the left fronto-temporal language network. Critically, however, no regions were more strongly engaged by syntactic than lexico-semantic processing, although some regions showed the opposite pattern. Thus, contra many current proposals of the neural architecture of language, syntactic/combinatorial processing is not separable from lexico-semantic processing at the level of brain regions-or even voxel subsets-within the language network, in line with strong integration between these two processes that has been consistently observed in behavioral and computational language research. The results further suggest that the language network may be generally more strongly concerned with meaning than syntactic form, in line with the primary function of language-to share meanings across minds.

Composition is the Core Driver of the Language-selective Network.

The frontotemporal language network responds robustly and selectively to sentences. But the features of linguistic input that drive this response and the computations that these language areas support remain debated. Two key features of sentences are typically confounded in natural linguistic input: words in sentences (a) are semantically and syntactically combinable into phrase- and clause-level meanings, and (b) occur in an order licensed by the language's grammar. Inspired by recent psycholinguistic work establishing that language processing is robust to word order violations, we hypothesized that the core linguistic computation is composition, and, thus, can take place even when the word order violates the grammatical constraints of the language. This hypothesis predicts that a linguistic string should elicit a sentence-level response in the language network provided that the words in that string can enter into dependency relationships as in typical sentences. We tested this prediction across two fMRI experiments (total N = 47) by introducing a varying number of local word swaps into naturalistic sentences, leading to progressively less syntactically well-formed strings. Critically, local dependency relationships were preserved because combinable words remained close to each other. As predicted, word order degradation did not decrease the magnitude of the blood oxygen level-dependent response in the language network, except when combinable words were so far apart that composition among nearby words was highly unlikely. This finding demonstrates that composition is robust to word order violations, and that the language regions respond as strongly as they do to naturalistic linguistic input, providing that composition can take place.

An Attempt to Conceptually Replicate the Dissociation between Syntax and Semantics during Sentence Comprehension.

Is sentence structure processed by the same neural and cognitive resources that are recruited for processing word meanings, or do structure and meaning rely on distinct resources? Linguistic theorizing and much behavioral evidence suggest tight integration between lexico-semantic and syntactic representations and processing. However, most current proposals of the neural architecture of language continue to postulate a distinction between the two. One of the earlier and most cited pieces of neuroimaging evidence in favor of this dissociation comes from a paper by Dapretto and Bookheimer (1999). Using a sentence-meaning judgment task, Dapretto & Bookheimer observed two distinct peaks within the left inferior frontal gyrus (LIFG): one was more active during a lexico-semantic manipulation, and the other during a syntactic manipulation. Although the paper is highly cited, no attempt has been made, to our knowledge, to replicate the original finding. We report an fMRI study that attempts to do so. Using a combination of whole-brain, group-level ROI, and participant-specific functional ROI approaches, we fail to replicate the original dissociation. In particular, whereas parts of LIFG respond reliably more strongly during lexico-semantic than syntactic processing, no part of LIFG (including in the region defined around the peak reported by Dapretto & Bookheimer) shows the opposite pattern. We speculate that the original result was a false positive, possibly driven by a small subset of participants or items that biased a fixed-effects analysis with low power.