62
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The relation of object naming and other visual speech production tasks:A large scale voxel-based morphometric study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          We report a lesion–symptom mapping analysis of visual speech production deficits in a large group (280) of stroke patients at the sub-acute stage (<120 days post-stroke). Performance on object naming was evaluated alongside three other tests of visual speech production, namely sentence production to a picture, sentence reading and nonword reading. A principal component analysis was performed on all these tests' scores and revealed a ‘shared’ component that loaded across all the visual speech production tasks and a ‘unique’ component that isolated object naming from the other three tasks. Regions for the shared component were observed in the left fronto-temporal cortices, fusiform gyrus and bilateral visual cortices. Lesions in these regions linked to both poor object naming and impairment in general visual–speech production. On the other hand, the unique naming component was potentially associated with the bilateral anterior temporal poles, hippocampus and cerebellar areas. This is in line with the models proposing that object naming relies on a left-lateralised language dominant system that interacts with a bilateral anterior temporal network. Neuropsychological deficits in object naming can reflect both the increased demands specific to the task and the more general difficulties in language processing.

          Highlights

          • The shared and unique neural substrates of object naming were examined in 280 stroke patients.

          • Clinical CT scans and performance on clinical language tests were analysed using voxel-based morphometry.

          • Principal component analysis on the test scores identified a shared language component and a unique naming component.

          • The general language component recruits a widespread left-lateralised fronto-temporal network.

          • The unique object naming component is linked to the bi-anterior temporal poles and cerebellar areas.

          Related collections

          Most cited references89

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Ventral and dorsal pathways for language.

          Built on an analogy between the visual and auditory systems, the following dual stream model for language processing was suggested recently: a dorsal stream is involved in mapping sound to articulation, and a ventral stream in mapping sound to meaning. The goal of the study presented here was to test the neuroanatomical basis of this model. Combining functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) with a novel diffusion tensor imaging (DTI)-based tractography method we were able to identify the most probable anatomical pathways connecting brain regions activated during two prototypical language tasks. Sublexical repetition of speech is subserved by a dorsal pathway, connecting the superior temporal lobe and premotor cortices in the frontal lobe via the arcuate and superior longitudinal fascicle. In contrast, higher-level language comprehension is mediated by a ventral pathway connecting the middle temporal lobe and the ventrolateral prefrontal cortex via the extreme capsule. Thus, according to our findings, the function of the dorsal route, traditionally considered to be the major language pathway, is mainly restricted to sensory-motor mapping of sound to articulation, whereas linguistic processing of sound to meaning requires temporofrontal interaction transmitted via the ventral route.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Unified segmentation

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The fusiform face area: a cortical region specialized for the perception of faces.

              Faces are among the most important visual stimuli we perceive, informing us not only about a person's identity, but also about their mood, sex, age and direction of gaze. The ability to extract this information within a fraction of a second of viewing a face is important for normal social interactions and has probably played a critical role in the survival of our primate ancestors. Considerable evidence from behavioural, neuropsychological and neurophysiological investigations supports the hypothesis that humans have specialized cognitive and neural mechanisms dedicated to the perception of faces (the face-specificity hypothesis). Here, we review the literature on a region of the human brain that appears to play a key role in face perception, known as the fusiform face area (FFA). Section 1 outlines the theoretical background for much of this work. The face-specificity hypothesis falls squarely on one side of a longstanding debate in the fields of cognitive science and cognitive neuroscience concerning the extent to which the mind/brain is composed of: (i) special-purpose ('domain-specific') mechanisms, each dedicated to processing a specific kind of information (e.g. faces, according to the face-specificity hypothesis), versus (ii) general-purpose ('domain-general') mechanisms, each capable of operating on any kind of information. Face perception has long served both as one of the prime candidates of a domain-specific process and as a key target for attack by proponents of domain-general theories of brain and mind. Section 2 briefly reviews the prior literature on face perception from behaviour and neurophysiology. This work supports the face-specificity hypothesis and argues against its domain-general alternatives (the individuation hypothesis, the expertise hypothesis and others). Section 3 outlines the more recent evidence on this debate from brain imaging, focusing particularly on the FFA. We review the evidence that the FFA is selectively engaged in face perception, by addressing (and rebutting) five of the most widely discussed alternatives to this hypothesis. In section 4, we consider recent findings that are beginning to provide clues into the computations conducted in the FFA and the nature of the representations the FFA extracts from faces. We argue that the FFA is engaged both in detecting faces and in extracting the necessary perceptual information to recognize them, and that the properties of the FFA mirror previously identified behavioural signatures of face-specific processing (e.g. the face-inversion effect). Section 5 asks how the computations and representations in the FFA differ from those occurring in other nearby regions of cortex that respond strongly to faces and objects. The evidence indicates clear functional dissociations between these regions, demonstrating that the FFA shows not only functional specificity but also area specificity. We end by speculating in section 6 on some of the broader questions raised by current research on the FFA, including the developmental origins of this region and the question of whether faces are unique versus whether similarly specialized mechanisms also exist for other domains of high-level perception and cognition.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Neuroimage Clin
                Neuroimage Clin
                NeuroImage : Clinical
                Elsevier
                2213-1582
                27 January 2015
                27 January 2015
                2015
                : 7
                : 463-475
                Affiliations
                [a ]School of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
                [b ]Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
                [c ]Department of Radiology, Royal Orthopaedic Hospital, Birmingham, UK
                [d ]Department of Psychology, Edge Hill University, Lancashire, UK
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence to: Brain and Behavioural Sciences, School of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK. Tel.: +44(0) 121 414 3679. kxl946@ 123456bham.ac.uk
                Article
                S2213-1582(15)00016-9
                10.1016/j.nicl.2015.01.015
                4325087
                25685713
                2749be2b-0e1e-4928-abcc-096d6e7ad617
                © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

                This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).

                History
                : 3 September 2014
                : 21 January 2015
                : 23 January 2015
                Categories
                Article

                stroke,principal component analysis,vbm,picture naming,speech production,sentence reading,nonword reading,sentence production,picture description,bcos,ct

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content39

                Cited by10

                Most referenced authors1,100