This site needs JavaScript to work properly. Please enable it to take advantage of the complete set of features!
Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation

Save citation to file

Add to Collections

Name must be less than 100 characters
Unable to load your collection due to an error
Please try again

Add to My Bibliography

Unable to load your delegates due to an error
Please try again

Your saved search

Would you like email updates of new search results?
Saved Search Alert Radio Buttons
()

Create a file for external citation management software

Your RSS Feed

. 2011 Feb;134(Pt 2):415-31.
doi: 10.1093/brain/awq369.

Left inferior frontal cortex and syntax: function, structure and behaviour in patients with left hemisphere damage

Affiliations

Affiliation

  • 1 Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. lktyler@csl.psychol.cam.ac.uk

Left inferior frontal cortex and syntax: function, structure and behaviour in patients with left hemisphere damage

Lorraine K Tyler et al. Brain. 2011 Feb.
. 2011 Feb;134(Pt 2):415-31.
doi: 10.1093/brain/awq369.

Affiliation

  • 1 Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. lktyler@csl.psychol.cam.ac.uk

Abstract

For the past 150 years, neurobiological models of language have debated the role of key brain regions in language function. One consistently debated set of issues concern the role of the left inferior frontal gyrus in syntactic processing. Here we combine measures of functional activity, grey matter integrity and performance in patients with left hemisphere damage and healthy participants to ask whether the left inferior frontal gyrus is essential for syntactic processing. In a functional neuroimaging study, participants listened to spoken sentences that either contained a syntactically ambiguous or matched unambiguous phrase. Behavioural data on three tests of syntactic processing were subsequently collected. In controls, syntactic processing co-activated left hemisphere Brodmann areas 45/47 and posterior middle temporal gyrus. Activity in a left parietal cluster was sensitive to working memory demands in both patients and controls. Exploiting the variability in lesion location and performance in the patients, voxel-based correlational analyses showed that tissue integrity and neural activity-primarily in left Brodmann area 45 and posterior middle temporal gyrus-were correlated with preserved syntactic performance, but unlike the controls, patients were insensitive to syntactic preferences, reflecting their syntactic deficit. These results argue for the essential contribution of the left inferior frontal gyrus in syntactic analysis and highlight the functional relationship between left Brodmann area 45 and the left posterior middle temporal gyrus, suggesting that when this relationship breaks down, through damage to either region or to the connections between them, syntactic processing is impaired. On this view, the left inferior frontal gyrus may not itself be specialized for syntactic processing, but plays an essential role in the neural network that carries out syntactic computations.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1

Lesion frequency map . (

Figure 1

Lesion frequency map . ( A ) Whole-brain view. Across patients, damage covers…

Figure 1
Lesion frequency map. (A) Whole-brain view. Across patients, damage covers left hemisphere regions including inferior and middle frontal gyri, superior and middle temporal gyri, superior and inferior parietal lobules, insula and basal ganglia. Colour indicates number of patients with damage at each voxel. Left = surface of left hemisphere. Right = sagittal section at MNI x = −45 mm. (B) Lesion frequency shown in separate subregions of left inferior frontal gyrus: BA 44, 45 and 47. Damage was comparable between subregions, with most voxels having a lesion frequency of 4–6. Regions were defined using the Brodmann atlas from MRIcron. Sagittal sections at MNI x = −45 mm (left column), slightly more medial sagittal sections at MNI x = −55 mm (right column).
Figure 2

Figure 2

Effects of syntactic ambiguity in…

Figure 2

Effects of syntactic ambiguity in controls . ( A ) Controls show an…

Figure 2
Effects of syntactic ambiguity in controls. (A) Controls show an overall effect of ambiguity in bilateral inferior frontal gyrus and left inferior parietal lobule, angular gyrus and supramarginal gyrus. (B) Sentences with the dominant continuation of the ambiguous phrase activate left inferior frontal gyrus and left inferior parietal lobule, angular gyrus and supramarginal gyrus only. (C) Sentences using the subordinate continuation activate bilateral inferior frontal gyrus, left inferior parietal lobule, angular gyrus, supramarginal gyrus and left posterior middle temporal gyrus. (D) Subordinate sentences elicit stronger activity than dominant in left inferior frontal gyrus and left posterior middle temporal gyrus. Voxel-level threshold P < 0.01; cluster-level threshold P < 0.05, corrected for multiple comparisons.
Figure 3

Figure 3

Effects of syntactic ambiguity in…

Figure 3

Effects of syntactic ambiguity in patients . ( A ) Patients show an…

Figure 3
Effects of syntactic ambiguity in patients. (A) Patients show an overall effect of ambiguity in right inferior frontal gyrus (BA 45 extending to BA 47) and left inferior parietal lobule, angular gyrus and supramarginal gyrus. (B) Sentences using the dominant continuation of the ambiguous phrase activate left inferior parietal lobule, angular gyrus and supramarginal gyrus. (C) Sentences using the subordinate continuation activate right inferior frontal gyrus (BA 45 extending to BA 47) and bilateral posterior middle temporal gyrus (extending to angular gyrus). (Note: there were no significant differences between subordinate and dominant sentences in patients). Voxel-level threshold P < 0.01; cluster-level threshold P < 0.05, corrected for multiple comparisons.
Figure 4

Figure 4

Correlations between performance, activity and…

Figure 4

Correlations between performance, activity and tissue integrity in patients . ( A )…

Figure 4
Correlations between performance, activity and tissue integrity in patients. (A) Activity in left inferior frontal gyrus (BA 45 extending to BA 47), right insula, superior temporal gyrus and left posterior middle temporal gyrus correlates with performance on the acceptability task (difference in unacceptable judgements between ambiguous and unambiguous sentences). Plot: performance over cluster mean activity for each region. (B) Tissue integrity in left inferior frontal gyrus (BA 45 and 47) and left posterior middle temporal gyrus correlates with performance on the acceptability task (as in A). Plot: performance over cluster mean tissue integrity for each region. (C) Tissue integrity in corresponding regions correlates with syntactic impairment on the sentence-picture matching task (partial correlation with role reversal errors controlling for lexical errors). Plots: performance over tissue integrity at voxels in left inferior frontal gyrus BA 45 (i; MNI −51, 39, 3), BA 44 (ii; MNI −54, 12, 20) and left posterior middle temporal gyrus (iii; MNI −59, −44, −2). All effects shown voxel-level P < 0.01, (A) and (B) cluster-level P < 0.05 uncorrected, (C) cluster-level P < 0.05 corrected. See ‘Results’ section for explanation of thresholds. LIFG = left inferior frontal gyrus; LpMTG = left posterior middle temporal gyrus; LMTG = left middle temporal gyrus; MNI = Montreal Neurological Institute coordinates; R = right; STG = superior temporal gyrus.

References

    1. Ashburner J, Friston KJ. Unified segmentation. Neuroimage. 2005;26:839–51. - PubMed
    1. Baayen RH, Pipenbrook R, Gulikers L. The CELEX Lexical database. Linguistic Data Consortium. Philadelphia: Philadelphia Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania; 1995.
    1. Berndt RS, Mitchum C, Burton M, Haendiges A. Comprehension of reversible sentences in aphasia: the effects of verb meaning. Cogn Neuropsychol. 2004;21:229–45. - PubMed
    1. Berndt RS, Mitchum CC, Haendiges AN. Comprehension of reversible sentences in ‘agrammatism’: a meta-analysis. Cognition. 1996;58:289–308. - PubMed
    1. Binder JR, Frost JA, Hammeke TA, Cox RW, Rao SM, Prieto T. Human brain language areas identified by functional magnetic resonance imaging. J Neurosci. 1997;17:353–62. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

Cite
Morty Proxy This is a proxified and sanitized view of the page, visit original site.