Analyse von 82 Hirnaktivierungsxperimenten
mit vier verschiedenen
Wortproduktionsaufgaben:

Bildbenennung

Wortgenerierung
(z.B. Nennen Sie möglichst viele Tiere!)

Wortlesen
(HUND)

Pseudowortlesen
(HUNG)
Talairach & Tournoux (1988)
Lateral and medial view of reference brain
Reported
leastonce
once
Reported at least
Estimate of probability of overlap under the assumption
of a random distribution of activated regions
number of regions:
110
mean number of activated regions:
r
chance probability for a region to be reported
as activated in a single experiment (p1):
r/110
chance probability for a region to be reported as
activated in n1 out of n experiments:
n!
n1
n2
p
 p1  (1  p1 )
n1!n2!
(with n1 + n2 = n)
Reliability criterion:
p < 0.1 cut-off point in binomial distribution
Example region 1
Number of experiments:
82
Mean number of reported regions:
12.4
Reliably activated:
12 or more experiments
Reliably not activated:
4 or less experiments
Example region 2
Number of experiments:
23
Mean number of reported regions:
10.4
Reliably activated:
5 or more experiments
Reliably not activated:
-
Zuverlässig aktivierte (rot) und nicht aktivierte (blau)
Hirngebiete (basierend auf allen 82 Studien)
TASK ANALYSIS
Many tasks were not just word production tasks; they
involved other operations as well.
For instance, when you name the picture of a horse,
you not only produce the word 'horse', but you also
look at the picture and recognize it.
Such additional 'lead-in' operations involve the activation
of additional brain regions. These should be filtered out.
That requires a systematic task analysis, a distinction between
'lead-in' and 'core' operations of word production.
Responses during Verb Generation Task
BANANA
TROUSERS
CHAIR
GLASSES
TRUMPET
PENCIL
BUTTON
BIRD
EAR
DOOR
peel, slip on, eat up, plant
put on, wash, mend, buy, warm
sit, build, nail, sell, work, learn
clean, put on, step on, buy, see
blow, make music, put away, hear, play
sharpen, break, put away, draw
tear off, close, open
fly, eat up, sing
hear, pinch
open, close, kick against
Aufgabe
Bildbenennung
Einleitungsprozesse
visuelle Objekterkennung
Kernprozesse
Konzeptuelle Vorbereitung
lexikalisches Konzept
lexikalische Selektion
Lemma
Wortlesen
visuelle
Worterkennung
Wortformzugriff
Wortform
Pseudowortlesen
Graphem/Phonem
Konversion
Syllabifizierung
phonologisches Wort
phonetische Enkodierung
aussprechen vs.
Wort “denken”
abstraktes Motorprogramm
Artikulation
gesprochenes Wort
Selbstmonitoring
Wortgenerierung
Worterkennung
Objektvorstellung
Gedächtnis etc.
Bildbenennung
Wortgenerierung
Bildbenennung (grün), Wortgenerierung (blau),
gemeinsame Gebiete (rot)
Gemeinsame Aktivierungsgebiete von
Bildbenennung und Wortgenerierung
Aufgabe
Bildbenennung
Einleitungsprozesse
visuelle Objekterkennung
Kernprozesse
Konzeptuelle Vorbereitung
lexikalisches Konzept
lexikalische Selektion
Lemma
Wortlesen
visuelle
Worterkennung
Wortformzugriff
Wortform
Pseudowortlesen
Graphem/Phonem
Konversion
Syllabifizierung
phonologisches Wort
phonetische Enkodierung
aussprechen vs.
Wort “denken”
abstraktes Motorprogramm
Artikulation
gesprochenes Wort
Selbstmonitoring
Wortgenerierung
Worterkennung
Objektvorstellung
Gedächtnis etc.
Aufgabe
Bildbenennung
Einleitungsprozesse
visuelle Objekterkennung
Kernprozesse
Konzeptuelle Vorbereitung
lexikalisches Konzept
lexikalische Selektion
Lemma
Wortlesen
visuelle
Worterkennung
Wortformzugriff
Wortform
Pseudowortlesen
Graphem/Phonem
Konversion
Syllabifizierung
phonologisches Wort
phonetische Enkodierung
aussprechen vs.
Wort “denken”
abstraktes Motorprogramm
Artikulation
gesprochenes Wort
Selbstmonitoring
Wortgenerierung
Worterkennung
Objektvorstellung
Gedächtnis etc.
Gemeinsame Aktivierungsgebiete von
Bildbenennung, Wortgenerierung und Wortlesen
Aufgabe
Bildbenennung
Einleitungsprozesse
visuelle Objekterkennung
Kernprozesse
Konzeptuelle Vorbereitung
lexikalisches Konzept
lexikalische Selektion
Lemma
Wortlesen
visuelle
Worterkennung
Wortformzugriff
Wortform
Pseudowortlesen
Graphem/Phonem
Konversion
Syllabifizierung
phonologisches Wort
phonetische Enkodierung
aussprechen vs.
Wort “denken”
abstraktes Motorprogramm
Artikulation
gesprochenes Wort
Selbstmonitoring
Wortgenerierung
Worterkennung
Objektvorstellung
Gedächtnis etc.
Gemeinsame Aktivierungsgebiete aller Aufgaben
Aussprechen im Vergleich zu Wort “denken”
Schematische Darstellung des Ergebnisses der
Meta-Analyse von 82 Hirnaktivierungsstudien
Indefrey, P. and Levelt, W.J.M. (2004) Cognition
Picture naming
Study
Year
Journal
No. Subj.
Method
active condition
control condition
additional tasks
L1
L2
L2 onset
L2 duration
L2 proficiency
L2 use
Hernandez
2000
BrainLang
6
fMRI
cov picture naming
rest
Hernandez
2001
Neuroimage
6
fMRI
cov picture naming
rest
De Bleser
2003 (non-cognates)
Neuroimage
11
PET
cov picture naming
fixation
Vingerhoets
2003
Neuroimage
12
fMRI
cov picture naming
scrambled pictures
Rodriguez-Fornells
2005
JOCN
11
fMRI
onsetdec on pictures
fixation
Spa
Eng
<5
18
high
L2 dominant
Spa
Eng
<5
>16
high
L2 dominant
Fle
Fre
10
8-11
high
n.g
Dut
Fre/Eng
10.3/13.5
17/14
good
low/high
Spa
Ger
3
>20
balanced
L2 dominant
Picture naming
Stronger activation in L2 as compared to L1
found in
L2
onset
L2
proficiency
L2
exposure
De Bleser 2003
10
good – very good
?
Vingerhoets 2003
10-14
mixed
low/high
RodriguesFornells 2005
3
balanced
dominant
Hernandez 2001
<5
high
dominant
Hernandez 2000
<5
high
dominant
not found in
mean no. areas: 1.4
L2
L1
shared
Lucas II et al., J Neurosurgery 2004, Fig. 4
Conclusions
L1 and L2 word production recruit the same set of areas
(but only at the group level).
No areas are more strongly recruited in L1.
The left posterior inferior frontal gyrus may be recruited
more strongly in L2 speakers with late L2 onset and/or
low proficiency.
This region contains L1 specific but no L2 specific sites
that are necessary for word production.
This region is the most likely candidate for post-lexical
phonological encoding (syllabification) in L1 word
production.
The cognitive architecture of listening to
language
interpretation
integration with other
knowledge sources
syntactic analysis
word recognition
thematic analysis
phonological processing
phonemes, syllables
segmenting
speech code
decoding
speech signal
Reversed speech versus silence
Word lists versus silence
Study
Studies comparing auditory stimuli to silent baseline
conditions
Stimulus
#
Study
Stimulus
Belin 1998
200ms frequency transition, 60/min
1
Mirz 1999
tones, 1000Hz
19
Belin 1998
40ms frequency transition, 60/min
2
Mirz 1999
tones, 1000 + 4000Hz
20
Belin 1999
synthetic diphthong, 6/min
3
Mirz 1999
words
21
Binder 2000
tones, different frequencies, 90/min
4
Müller 1997
sentences, 12/min
22
Bookheimer 1998
pseudowords, 9/min
5
Petersen 1988
words, 60/min
23
Celsis 1999
syllables, 180/min
6
Price 1996
words, 40/min
24
Celsis 1999
tones, 500 + 700Hz, 180/min
7
Price 1996
words, different rates
25
di Salle 2001
tones, 1000Hz, 6/min
8
Suzuki 2002a
words, 60/min
26
Engelien 1995
environmental sounds, 10/min
9
Suzuki 2002b
tones, 1000Hz, 60/min
27
Fiez 1996
pseudowords, 60/min
10
Thivard 2000
tones with spectral maxima, 60/min 28
Fiez 1996
words, 60/min
11
Warburton 1996
words, 4/min
29
Giraud 2000
vowels vs. expecting vowels, 120/min
12
Wise 1991
pseudowords, 40 or 60/min
30
Holcomb 1998
tones, 1500Hz + lower tones, 30/min
13
Wong 1999
reversed sentences, 30/min
31
Jäncke 1999
tones, 1000Hz, 60/min
14
Wong 1999
sentences, 30/min
32
Lockwood 1999
tones, 500 + 4000Hz, 60/min
15
Wong 1999
words, 30/min
33
Mellet 1996
words, 30/min
16
Wong 2002
reversed words, 15/min
34
Mirz 1999
music
17
Wong 2002
sentences, 12/min
35
Mirz 1999
sentences
18
Wong 2002
words, 15/min
36
Indefrey & Cutler, 2004
#
Studies comparing auditory stimuli to simpler auditory
stimuli
Study
Stimulus vs.
control stimulus
#
Benson 2001
CVC > CV > V
1
Binder 1996
words vs. tones
2
Binder 2000
pseudo vs. tones
3
Binder 2000
reversed words vs. tones
4
Binder 2000
words vs. tones
5
Giraud 2000
amplitude modulated noise vs. noise
6
Giraud 2000
sentences vs. vowels
7
Giraud 2000
words vs. vowels
8
Hall 2002
frequency modulated vs. static tone
9
Hall 2002
harmonic vs. single tone
10
Jäncke 2002
syllables vs. 350 ms white noise bursts
11
Jäncke 2002
syllables vs. steady state portion of vowel
12
Jäncke 2002
syllables vs. tones
13
Müller 2002
90% 1000Hz + 10% 500Hz vs. 1000Hz
14
Mummery 1999
words vs. signal correlated noise
15
Price 1996
words vs. reversed words
16
Schlosser 1998
sentences vs. unknown language
17
Scott 2000
sentences vs. rotated sentences
18
Thivard 2000
frequency transition vs. stationary tone
19
Indefrey & Cutler, 2004
Silent
control
Silent
control
Silent
control
Silent
control
Silent
control
Silent
control
Silent
control
Silent
control
Silent
control
Silent
control
Summary
Listening to speech without an
additional task induces extensive
bilateral temporal activation but no
reliable activation of Broca’s area.
Summary
With increasing linguistic complexity of
stimuli, the distance of activation
maxima from the primary auditory
cortex increases; particularly in the left
hemisphere.
It seems to be the highest linguistic
processing level that leads to the most
significant activation difference
compared to a silent control.
Summary
The left hemisphere shows a clearer
stimulus-specific differentiation of
activation maxima.
Areas that seem to be especially related
to (post-) lexical and sentence level
processing can be identified.
Summary
bilateral posterior STG: phonology
left posterior STS: lexical phonology
left anterior STS: possibly lexical and
sentential prosody, possibly lexical and
sentential meaning
Neuroimaging studies on syntactic processing
Approach A:
Syntax versus no syntax
ACTIVATION
CONTROL
The cat is chasing the mouse.
cat
is the %2#
&%#$@
hgrfbdw
Advantage:
Disadvantage:
to
mouse
the chasing
(Rest)
&%$#@
dgjrt
hgjtrdf
frt fpg
Syntactic parsing not subtracted out
Activated areas may be related
nonsyntactic processing components
Neuroimaging studies on syntactic processing
Approach B:
More syntax versus less syntax
ACTIVATION
CONTROL
The mouse
cat is
that
thethe
cat
arechasing
chasing
the
mouse. stole the cheese.
chased
The cat chased
is chasing
thethe
mouse.that stole the
mouse
cheese.
The cat is chasing the rat.
The mouse is chased by the
cat.
Advantage:
Nonsyntactic processing components
well controlled
Disadvantage:
subtracted
Syntactic parsing (in part)
out
Neuroimaging studies on syntactic processing
Indefrey (2004)
Talairach & Tournoux (1988)
Lateral and medial view of reference brain
How many studies must agree
on a certain area?
number of regions = 110
mean number of activated regions
per experiment = 5.1
chance probability for a region to be reported as
activated in a single experiment:
p1 = 5.1 / 110 = 0.046
chance probability for a region to be reported as
activated
in n1 outn1of n experiments:
n!
p
 p1  (1  p1)n2
(with n1 + n2 = n)
n1!n2!
Sentence processing studies:
Summary
Indefrey (2004)
Sentences vs.
control below
sentence level
53
Reading Listening
23
33
Syntactically more
vs. less demanding
sentences
57
Reading Listening
42
18
Semantically more
vs. less demanding
sentences
51
Reading Listening
37
15
Note: some studies reported sentence reading and listening data
Hagoort & Indefrey
(2014)
Sentences vs.
control below
sentence level
53
Reading Listening
23
33
Syntactically more
vs. less demanding
sentences
57
Reading Listening
42
18
Semantically more
vs. less demanding
sentences
51
Reading Listening
37
15
Note: some studies reported sentence reading and listening data
Hagoort & Indefrey
(2014)
Interim summary




Compared to low-level control conditions, sentence
processing activates left posterior inferior frontal
(BA 44, 45, 47) and left temporal cortex
Sentence listening activates bilateral temporal
cortices
For passive sentence listening or word-level control
conditions BA 44 (pars opercularis) is no longer
reliably found
> understanding simple sentences may not involve
(detectable) syntactic processing
wegstossen-Animation(1)
wegstossen-Animation(2)
Condition1: Sentences
Der rote Kreis stößt die grüne Ellipse weg.
(The red circle pushes the green ellipse away.)
Condition 2: Noun phrases
roter Kreis, grüne Ellipse, wegstoßen
(red circle, green ellipse, push away)
Condition 3: Single words
Kreis, rot, Ellipse, grün, wegstoßen
(circle, red, ellipse, green, push away)
All conditions at slow (6/min) and fast (8/min) rate.
Sentences vs. Single Words
Activation maximum at -54,6,10
Activation maximum at -60,14,12
Indefrey et al. (2001) PNAS
Indefrey et al. (2004) Brain & Language
S and NP production vs. control (W)
Indefrey, Hellwig, Herzog, Seitz & Hagoort (2004) Brain & Language
Sentences vs.
control below
sentence level
53
Reading Listening
23
33
Syntactically more
vs. less demanding
sentences
57
Reading Listening
42
18
Semantically more
vs. less demanding
sentences
51
Reading Listening
37
15
Note: some studies reported sentence reading and listening data
Hagoort & Indefrey
(2014)
Syntactically demanding
Violation
Ambiguity
Complexity
Inflection
The test is being explain/explained*
Grammatical category
The dance is being not too seriously rehearsal/rehearsed*
(Cooke et al., 2006)
He noticed that landing planes frightens some new pilots.
(Rodd et al., 2010)
Relative clauses:
The reporter who the senator attacked admitted the error.
The reporter who attacked the senator admitted the error.
(Just et al. , 1996)
Non-canonicity:
The red book John gave to the professor from Oxford.
John gave the red book to the professor from Oxford.
(Ben-Shachar et al., 2004)
Semantically demanding
Violation
Selection restrictions:
Dutch trains are sour.
World knowledge:
Dutch trains are white.
(Hagoort et al. 2004)
Ambiguity
The reporter commented that modern compounds react unpredictably.
Complexity
Metaphor:
A sailboat is a floating leaf.
Metonymy, coercion, causal relationships
Africa is hungry/arid.
The novelist began/wrote the book.
(Rodd et al., 2010)
(Diaz & Hogstrom, 2011)
(Rapp et al., 2011)
(Husband et al., 2011)
The boys were having an argument.
They became more and more angry./They began hitting each other.
The next day they had bruises.
(Kuperberg et al., 2006)
Indirect question/reply, Irony:
Did you like my presentation?/ How hard is it to give a good presentation?
It is hard to give a good presentation.
(Bašnáková et al., 2013)
Ann promised to keep her party dress clean.
She came home covered in mud.
Her mom said:”Thanks for staying so clean.”
(Eviatar & Just, 2006)
Resting state connectivity patterns reported by Xiang et
al. (2010, Cerebral Cortex)
Summary

Both syntactic and semantic compositional processing recruit frontal and
temporal regions
 In both frontal and temporal cortex there is a gradient with syntactic
processes activating more dorsal regions and semantic processes
activating more ventral regions.
 this pattern speaks against reducing syntactic processing to some aspect of
semantic processing


Frontal and temporal cortex activations dissociate for violations
this finding supports a division of labor with frontal cortex subserving
compositional processing as such and temporal cortex having a role in the
retrieval of lexically stored semantic and syntactic information

Understanding non-literal meaning, in particular ‚speaker meaning‘ requires
the recruitment of additional regions, such as the medial prefrontal cortex,
supporting non-linguistic Theory-of-Mind processing.
Sentence comprehension
Study
Year
Journal
No. Subj.
Method
active condition
control condition
additional tasks
L1
L2
L2 onset
L2 duration
L2 proficiency
L2 use
Chee
1999 (exp1)
Neuron
15
fMRI
sentence reading
fixation
comprehension probe
Chi/Eng
Chi/Eng
<6
13-20
high
daily
Hasegawa
2002
Neuroimage
10
fMRI
sentence listening
fixation
verification
Jap
Eng
12
14
high
high(in L2 env.)
Luke
2002
HBM
7
fMRI
VP reading
fontsizedec
synt or sem dec
Chi
Eng
>10
10-21
high(selfrating)
moderate?
Frenck-Mestre
Rueschemeyer
2005
2005 (exp2, corr sent)
Neuroreport
HBM
6
18/14
fMRI
fMRI
overt sentence readingsentence listening
consonant strings
rest
judgment
Eng
Ger/Rus
Fre
Ger
>12
n.g.
>15
5
high
n.g.
high (in L2 env.)
high (in L2 env.)
Narrative comprehension
Study
Year
Journal
No. Subj.
Method
active condition
control condition
additional tasks
L1
L2
L2 onset
L2 duration
L2 proficiency
L2 use
Perani
1996
Neuroreport
9
PET
story listening
reversed speech
Perani
1998
Brain
9
PET
story listening
reversed speech
Perani
1998
Brain
12
PET
story listening
reversed speech
Nakai
1999
Neurosc letters
4
fMRI
story listening
rest
Nakada
2001
Neurosc Research
10
fMRI
paragraph reading
false fonts
Vingerhoets
2003
Neuroimage
12
fMRI
story reading
pseudoword lists
Ita
Eng
7
14-25
moderate
low
Ita
Eng
10
9-40
high
daily
Spa/Cat
Spa/Cat
2
17-25
high
daily
Jap
Eng
n.g.
n.g.
n.g.
n.g.
Jap/Eng
Eng/Jap
10
>10
high
n.g.
Dut
Fre/Eng
10.3/13.5
17/14
good
low/high
Sentence listening / reading
Stronger activation in L2 as compared to L1
found in
L2
onset
L2
proficiency
L2
exposure
Hasegawa 2002
12
high
high
Luke 2002
>10
high
?
Nakai 1999
?
?
?
Perani 1998
10
high
high
Perani 1998
2
high
high
Perani 1996
7
moderate
low
Vingerhoets 2003
10-14
mixed
low/high
Nakada 2001
>10
high
?
Rüschemeyer 2005
?
?
high
Chee 1999
<6
high
high
Frenck-Mestre 2005
>12
high
high
not found in
mean no. areas: 2.4
Sentence listening / reading
Stronger activation in L2 as compared to L1
found in
L2
onset
L2
proficiency
L2
exposure
Nakai 1999
?
?
?
Rüschemeyer 2005
?
?
high
Luke 2002
>10
high
?
Perani 1998
10
high
high
Perani 1998
2
high
high
Perani 1996
7
moderate
low
Vingerhoets 2003
10-14
mixed
low/high
Nakada 2001
>10
high
?
Hasegawa 2002
12
high
high
Chee 1999
<6
high
high
Frenck-Mestre 2005
>12
high
high
not found in
mean no. areas: 2.4
Sentence listening / reading
Stronger activation in L2 as compared to L1
found in
L2
onset
L2
proficiency
L2
exposure
Nakai 1999
?
?
?
Luke 2002
>10
high
?
Perani 1998
10
high
high
Perani 1998
2
high
high
Perani 1996
7
moderate
low
Vingerhoets 2003
10-14
mixed
low/high
Nakada 2001
>10
high
?
Rüschemeyer 2005
?
?
high
Chee 1999
<6
high
high
Frenck-Mestre 2005
>12
high
high
not found in
mean no. areas: 2.4
Sentence listening / reading
Stronger activation in L2 as compared to L1
found in
L2
onset
L2
proficiency
L2
exposure
Rüschemeyer 2005
?
?
high
Luke 2002
>10
high
?
Nakai 1999
?
?
?
Perani 1998
10
high
high
Perani 1998
2
high
high
Perani 1996
7
moderate
low
Vingerhoets 2003
10-14
mixed
low/high
Nakada 2001
>10
high
?
Chee 1999
<6
high
high
Frenck-Mestre 2005
>12
high
high
not found in
mean no. areas: 2.4
Sentence listening / reading
Stronger activation in L2 as compared to L1
found in
L2
onset
L2
proficiency
L2
exposure
Nakai 1999
?
?
?
Hasegawa 2002
12
high
high
Perani 1998
10
high
high
Perani 1998
2
high
high
Perani 1996
7
moderate
low
Vingerhoets 2003
10-14
mixed
low/high
Nakada 2001
>10
high
?
Rüschemeyer 2005
?
?
high
Chee 1999
<6
high
high
Frenck-Mestre 2005
>12
high
high
not found in
mean no. areas: 2.4
Sentence listening / reading
Stronger activation in L2 as compared to L1
found in
L2
onset
L2
proficiency
L2
exposure
Hasegawa 2002
12
high
high
Luke 2002
>10
high
?
Nakai 1999
?
?
?
Perani 1998
10
high
high
Perani 1998
2
high
high
Perani 1996
7
moderate
low
Vingerhoets 2003
10-14
mixed
low/high
Nakada 2001
>10
high
?
Rüschemeyer 2005
?
?
high
Chee 1999
<6
high
high
Frenck-Mestre 2005
>12
high
high
not found in
mean no. areas: 2.4
Conclusions
L1 and L2 sentence level comprehension recruit the
same set of areas.
Within this set of areas, there are to date no reliable
activation level differences between L1 and L2 narrative
comprehension.
Stronger L2 activation of the left posterior IFG may be
found for speakers with late L2 onset when additional
judgment tasks are used.
The left posterior IFG is the most likely candidate area
for syntactic processing.
Perani et al. 1996, 1998
Wartenburger et al. 2003
L2
proficiency
minutes
weeks
years
Longitudinal study
L2
proficiency
minutes
weeks
years
Longitudinal study: Participants
in NL
Lessons
started to learn NL
TS
April 03
school (6 hours/week)
Febr 04
CX
Jan 04
school (6 hours/day)
Jan 04
ZY
Jan 04
school (6 hours/day)
Jan 04
HQ
Jan 03
self study
Jan 04
CJ
April 02
school (6 hours/week)
Jan 04
JX
March 03
with a colleague (3 hours/week)
Febr 04
Longitudinal Study: Methods
Test battery at 3, 6, 9, 15, 18, and 24 months
Behavioural testing





‘nonverbal’ intelligence test (Raven Progressive Matrices)
handedness test
(only at 0 months)
standard Dutch proficiency test
language questionnaire
syntactic judgment test
fMRI experiment on syntactic processing
ERP experiment on semantic and syntactic violations
S:
W:
Het blauwe vierkant wordt door de gele cirkel weggestoten.
Lan2 fang1kuai4 bei4 huang2 yuan2quan1 tui1zou3.
The blue square is pushed away by the yellow circle.
(correct)
De gele cirkel wordt door het blauwe vierkant weggestoten.
Huang2 yuan2quan1 bei4 lan2 fang1kuai4 tui1zou3
The yellow circle is pushed away by the blue square away
(incorrect)
vierkant
fang1kuai4
square
blauw
lan2se4
blue
cirkel
yuan2quan1
circle
geel
huang2se4
yellow
wegstoten
tui1zou3
push away
(correct)
cirkel
yuan2quan1
circle
geel
huang2se4
yellow
cirkel
yuan2quan1
circle
blauw
lan2se4
blue
wegstoten
tui1zou3
push away
(incorrect)
Indefrey, Hellwig, Davidson, & Gullberg 2005
Dutch sentences versus words
(Dutch listeners)
Chinese sentences versus words
(Chinese listeners)
Dutch sentences versus words
(Chinese listeners, 3 months)
Dutch sentences versus words
(Chinese listeners, 6 months)
Ducth sentences versus words
(Chinese listeners, 9 months)
Dutch sentences versus words
(Chinese listeners, 15 months)
Conclusions
In L2-comprehension, both frontal and temporal areas
show syntactic-processing related activation similar to
L1 already after a few months of exposure.
The emergence of this activation precedes the ability to
detect number or gender violations, but follows the
ability to detect at least some types of word order
violations.
So far, there does not seem to be a correlation between
behavioral data and the enhanced hemodynamic
response to sentences compared to word lists.