The role of left inferior frontal and superior temporal cortex in sentence comprehension: localizing syntactic and semantic processes.

By Angela D. Friederici, Shirley-Ann Rüschemeyer, Anja Hahne, Christian J. Fiebach. Cerebral Cortex, 2003

831 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Developmental and Educational Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7b5218824d646089d559b4dff4bb1ce99a608848

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Neuroscience

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Neural mechanisms of language comprehension: challenges to syntax. (2007, background): “These regions are widespread and vary between studies, but include middle and superior prefrontal cortices, posterior inferior frontal and motor cortices, and parietal cortices (Friederici et al., 2003; Kuperberg et al., 2003a; Kuperberg et al., 2006d; Newman et al., 2001; Ni et al., 2000).”
Syntactic and Semantic Modulation of Neural Activity during Auditory Sentence Comprehension (2006, background): “The left AG shows greater activation for sentences with semantic violations than for normal sentences (Friederici et al., 2003; Newman et al., 2003; Ni et al., 2000).”
Where is the semantic system? A critical review and meta-analysis of 120 functional neuroimaging studies. (2009, background): “Several functional imaging studies have shown that the AG is activated in response to semantically anomalous words embedded in sentences, suggesting that it plays a role in integrating individual concepts into a larger whole (Ni et al. 2000; Friederici et al. 2003; Newman et al. 2003).”
Analysis of neural mechanisms underlying verbal fluency in cytoarchitectonically defined stereotaxic space - The roles of Brodmann areas 44 and 45 (2004, background): “More specific aspects of language perception and production such as phonologic and syntactic processing (BenShachar et al., 2003; Clahsen and Featherstone, 1999; Featherstone et al., 2000; Friederici et al., 2003; Groß et al., 1998; Indefrey et al., 2001; Keller et al., 2001; Knösche et al., 2000; M”
The extended argument dependency model: a neurocognitive approach to sentence comprehension across languages. (2006, methodology): “A further neuroanatomical correlate of Phase 1 processing has been observed in the left posterior deep frontal operculum (Friederici, Fiebach, Schlesewsky, Bornkessel, & von Cramon, in press; Friederici et al., 2003).”
Sparse logistic regression for whole brain classification of fMRI data (2010, background): “…be distinguished by discrete but distributed structures largely confined to the temporal and frontal lobes which have previously been implicated in speech and music processing (Formisano et al., 2008; Friederici et al., 2003; Koelsch et al., 2002; Levitin and Menon, 2003; Tervaniemi et al., 2006).”
An architecture for encoding sentence meaning in left mid-superior temporal cortex (2015, methodology): “First, fMRI studies (15, 31) have found increased activation in a similar region of mid-left STG/STS in response to implausible noun–verb combinations that violate a verb’s selectional restrictions (e.”
The neurobiology of language beyond single words. (2014, background): “For instance, the early left anterior negativity (ELAN), a syntax-related effect (Friederici et al. 2003), starts at ∼100–150 ms after onset of the acoustic word (but see Steinhauer & Drury 2012 for a critical discussion of the ELAN).”
A review and synthesis of the first 20 years of PET and fMRI studies of heard speech, spoken language and reading (2012, background): “Likewise, the role of the basal ganglia in syntactic processing continued to be of interest (Friederici et al., 2003) with Friederici and Kotz (2003) proposing that, while inferior frontal and anterior temporal cortices were involved in early syntactic processing, the basal ganglia were involved in…”
MUC (Memory, Unification, Control) and beyond (2013, background): “These studies either compared sentences containing semantic/pragmatic anomalies with their correct counterparts (e.g., Kiehl et al., 2002; Friederici et al., 2003; Hagoort et al., 2004; Ruschemeyer et al., 2006) or compared sentences with and without semantic ambiguities (Hoenig and Scheef, 2005;…”
The brain basis of language processing: from structure to function. (2011, methodology): “Across studies, it was found that syntactic phrase structure violations, which were seen to correlate with activation in the frontal operculum under normal auditory input conditions (81), activated BA 44 when normal sentences were presented pseudo-randomly together with auditorily unintelligible sen”
Who did what to whom? The neural basis of argument hierarchies during language comprehension (2005, result): “Interpreting the left posterior STS activation observed here in terms of a mapping from lexical/interpretive to syntactic argument hierarchies is consistent with previous findings of an interaction between syntax and semantics in posterior superior temporal areas (Friederici et al., 2003).”
Rethinking the neurological basis of language (2005, methodology): “If WH phrases and their antecedents must be kept available until a trace location is identified, the length between antecedent and gap is an important variable.”