Blank Idan A, Fedorenko Evelina
Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139,
Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital, Charlestown, Massachusetts 02129, and.
J Neurosci. 2017 Oct 11;37(41):9999-10011. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3642-16.2017. Epub 2017 Sep 4.
Language comprehension engages a cortical network of left frontal and temporal regions. Activity in this network is language-selective, showing virtually no modulation by nonlinguistic tasks. In addition, language comprehension engages a second network consisting of bilateral frontal, parietal, cingulate, and insular regions. Activity in this "multiple demand" (MD) network scales with comprehension difficulty, but also with cognitive effort across a wide range of nonlinguistic tasks in a domain-general fashion. Given the functional dissociation between the language and MD networks, their respective contributions to comprehension are likely distinct, yet such differences remain elusive. Prior neuroimaging studies have suggested that activity in each network covaries with some linguistic features that, behaviorally, influence on-line processing and comprehension. This sensitivity of the language and MD networks to local input characteristics has often been interpreted, implicitly or explicitly, as evidence that both networks track linguistic input closely, and in a manner consistent across individuals. Here, we used fMRI to directly test this assumption by comparing the BOLD signal time courses in each network across different people ( = 45, men and women) listening to the same story. Language network activity showed fewer individual differences, indicative of closer input tracking, whereas MD network activity was more idiosyncratic and, moreover, showed lower reliability within an individual across repetitions of a story. These findings constrain cognitive models of language comprehension by suggesting a novel distinction between the processes implemented in the language and MD networks. Language comprehension recruits both language-specific mechanisms and domain-general mechanisms that are engaged in many cognitive processes. In the human cortex, language-selective mechanisms are implemented in the left-lateralized "core language network", whereas domain-general mechanisms are implemented in the bilateral "multiple demand" (MD) network. Here, we report the first direct comparison of the respective contributions of these networks to naturalistic story comprehension. Using a novel combination of neuroimaging approaches we find that MD regions track stories less closely than language regions. This finding constrains the possible contributions of the MD network to comprehension, contrasts with accounts positing that this network has continuous access to linguistic input, and suggests a new typology of comprehension processes based on their extent of input tracking.
语言理解涉及左额叶和颞叶区域的皮质网络。该网络中的活动具有语言选择性,在非语言任务中几乎没有调节作用。此外,语言理解还涉及由双侧额叶、顶叶、扣带回和岛叶区域组成的第二个网络。这个“多重需求”(MD)网络中的活动随着理解难度而变化,但也以一种领域通用的方式随着广泛的非语言任务中的认知努力而变化。鉴于语言网络和MD网络之间的功能分离,它们对理解的各自贡献可能是不同的,但这种差异仍然难以捉摸。先前的神经影像学研究表明,每个网络中的活动与一些语言特征相关,这些语言特征在行为上会影响在线处理和理解。语言网络和MD网络对局部输入特征的这种敏感性常常被隐含或明确地解释为这两个网络都紧密跟踪语言输入且方式在个体间一致的证据。在这里,我们使用功能磁共振成像(fMRI)通过比较45名不同的人(男女都有)在听同一个故事时每个网络中的血氧水平依赖(BOLD)信号时间历程来直接检验这个假设。语言网络活动显示出较少的个体差异,表明对输入的跟踪更紧密,而MD网络活动则更具特异性,而且在一个人听同一个故事的重复过程中显示出较低的可靠性。这些发现通过提出语言网络和MD网络中所实现的过程之间的新区别来限制语言理解的认知模型。语言理解既招募特定于语言的机制,也招募参与许多认知过程的领域通用机制。在人类皮质中,语言选择性机制在左侧化的“核心语言网络”中实现,而领域通用机制在双侧的“多重需求”(MD)网络中实现。在这里,我们报告了对这些网络对自然故事理解的各自贡献的首次直接比较。使用神经影像学方法的新组合,我们发现MD区域比语言区域对故事的跟踪不那么紧密。这一发现限制了MD网络对理解的可能贡献,与认为该网络持续获取语言输入的观点形成对比,并基于输入跟踪的程度提出了一种新的理解过程类型学。