Skip Nav Destination
Close Modal
Update search
NARROW
Format
Journal
Date
Availability
1-2 of 2
Cathy J. Price
Close
Follow your search
Access your saved searches in your account
Would you like to receive an alert when new items match your search?
Sort by
Journal Articles
Publisher: Journals Gateway
Neurobiology of Language (2024) 5 (3): 795–817.
Published: 15 August 2024
FIGURES
| View All (5)
Abstract
View article
PDF
We investigated which parts of the cerebellum are involved in formulating and articulating sentences using (i) a sentence production task that involved describing simple events in pictures; (ii) an auditory sentence repetition task involving the same sentence articulation but not sentence formulation; and (iii) an auditory sentence-to-picture matching task that involved the same pictorial events and no overt articulation. Activation for each of these tasks was compared to the equivalent word processing tasks: noun production, verb production, auditory noun repetition, and auditory noun-to-picture matching. We associate activation in bilateral cerebellum lobule VIIb with sequencing words into sentences because it increased for sentence production compared to all other conditions and was also activated by word production compared to word matching. We associate a paravermal part of right cerebellar lobule VIIIb with overt motor execution of speech, because activation was higher during (i) production and repetition of sentences compared to the corresponding noun conditions and (ii) noun and verb production compared to all matching tasks, with no activation relative to fixation during any silent (nonspeaking) matching task. We associate activation within right cerebellar Crus II with covert articulatory activity because it activated for (i) all speech production more than matching tasks and (ii) sentences compared to nouns during silent (nonspeaking) matching as well as sentence production and sentence repetition. Our study serendipitously segregated, for the first time, three distinct functional roles for the cerebellum in generic speech production, and it demonstrated how sentence production enhanced the demands on these cerebellar regions.
Journal Articles
Publisher: Journals Gateway
Neurobiology of Language (2020) 1 (4): 402–433.
Published: 01 October 2020
FIGURES
| View All (6)
Abstract
View article
PDF
Numerous studies have investigated brain changes associated with interventions targeting a range of language problems in patients with aphasia. We strive to integrate the results of these studies to examine (1) whether the focus of the intervention (i.e., phonology, semantics, orthography, syntax, or rhythmic-melodic) determines in which brain regions changes occur; and (2a) whether the most consistent changes occur within the language network or outside, and (2b) whether these are related to individual differences in language outcomes. The results of 32 studies with 204 unique patients were considered. Concerning (1), the location of treatment-related changes does not clearly depend on the type of language processing targeted. However, there is some support that rhythmic-melodic training has more impact on the right hemisphere than linguistic training. Concerning (2), we observed that language recovery is not only associated with changes in traditional language-related structures in the left hemisphere and homolog regions in the right hemisphere, but also with more medial and subcortical changes (e.g., precuneus and basal ganglia). Although it is difficult to draw strong conclusions, because there is a lack of systematic large-scale studies on this topic, this review highlights the need for an integrated approach to investigate how language interventions impact on the brain. Future studies need to focus on larger samples preserving subject-specific information (e.g., lesion effects) to cope with the inherent heterogeneity of stroke-induced aphasia. In addition, recovery-related changes in whole-brain connectivity patterns need more investigation to provide a comprehensive neural account of treatment-related brain plasticity and language recovery.
Includes: Supplementary data