Whether the brain’s speech-production system is also involved in speech comprehension is a topic of much debate. Research has focused on whether motor areas are involved in listening, but overlap between speaking and listening might occur not only at primary sensory and motor levels, but also at linguistic levels (where semantic, lexical, and syntactic processes occur). Using functional MRI adaptation during speech comprehension and production, we found that the brain areas involved in semantic, lexical, and syntactic processing are mostly the same for speaking and for listening. Effects of primary processing load (indicative of sensory and motor processes) overlapped in auditory cortex and left inferior frontal cortex, but not in motor cortex, where processing load affected activity only in speaking. These results indicate that the linguistic parts of the language system are used for both speaking and listening, but that the motor system does not seem to provide a crucial contribution to listening.
AwadM.WarrenJ. E.ScottS. K.TurkheimerF. E.WiseR. J. S. (2007). A common system for the comprehension and production of narrative speech. Journal of Neuroscience, 27, 11455–11464.
2.
BookheimerS. (2002). Functional MRI of language: New approaches to understanding the cortical organization of semantic processing. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 25, 151–188.
3.
BraniganH. P.PickeringM. J.ClelandA. A. (2000). Syntactic co-ordination in dialogue. Cognition, 75, B13–B25.
4.
ClarkH. H.ChaseW. G. (1972). On the process of comparing sentences against pictures. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 472–517.
5.
Dehaene-LambertzG.DehaeneS.AntonJ.-L.CampagneA.CiuciuP.DehaeneG. P.. . . PolineJ.-B. (2006). Functional segregation of cortical language areas by sentence repetition. Human Brain Mapping, 27, 360–371.
6.
DevauchelleA.-D.OppenheimC.RizziL.DehaeneS.PallierC. (2009). Sentence syntax and content in the human temporal lobe: An fMRI adaptation study in auditory and visual modalities. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21, 1000–1012.
7.
FadigaL.CraigheroL.BuccinoG.RizzolattiG. (2002). Speech listening specifically modulates the excitability of tongue muscles: A TMS study. European Journal of Neuroscience, 15, 399–402.
8.
FedermeierK. D. (2007). Thinking ahead: The role and roots of prediction in language comprehension. Psychophysiology, 44, 491–505.
9.
FristonK. J.PennyW. D.GlaserD. E. (2005). Conjunction revisited. NeuroImage, 25, 661–667.
10.
Grill-SpectorK.HensonR.MartinA. (2006). Repetition and the brain: Neural models of stimulus-specific effects. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 14–23.
11.
HagoortP. (2005). On Broca, brain, and binding: A new framework. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 416–423.
12.
HagoortP.BaggioG.WillemsR. M. (2009). Semantic unification. In GazzanigaM. (Ed.), The cognitive neurosciences (4th ed., pp. 819–836). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
13.
HeimS. (2008). Syntactic gender processing in the human brain: A review and a model. Brain & Language, 106, 55–64.
14.
IndefreyP.BrownC. M.HellwigF.AmuntsK.HerzogH.SeltzR. J.HagoortP. (2001). A neural correlate of syntactic encoding during speech production. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 98, 5933–5936.
15.
IndefreyP.LeveltW. J. M. (2004). The spatial and temporal signatures of word production components. Cognition, 92, 101–144.
16.
JacquemotC.DupouxE.Bachoud-LéviA.-C. (2007). Breaking the mirror: Asymmetrical disconnection between the phonological input and output codes. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 24, 3–22.
17.
Jung-BeemanM. (2005). Bilateral brain processes for comprehending natural language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 512–518.
18.
KemenyS.YeF. Q.BirnR.BraunA. R. (2005). Comparison of continuous overt speech fMRI using BOLD and arterial spin labeling. Human Brain Mapping, 24, 173–183.
19.
KempenG. (2000). Could grammatical encoding and grammatical decoding be subserved by the same processing module?Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 23, 38–39.
20.
KnoeferleP.UrbachT. P.KutasM. (2011). Comprehending how visual context influences incremental sentence processing: Insights from ERPs and picture-sentence verification. Psychophysiology, 48, 495–506.
21.
LeveltW. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
22.
LibermanA. M.MattinglyI. G. (1985). The motor theory of speech perception revised. Cognition, 21, 1–36.
23.
LottoA. J.HickokG. S.HoltL. L. (2009). Reflections on mirror neurons and speech perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13, 110–114.
24.
MartinR. C.LeschM. F.BarthaM. C. (1999). Independence of input and output phonology in word processing and short-term memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 3–29.
25.
NeuhausE.PenkeM. (2008). Production and comprehension of wh-questions in German Broca’s aphasia. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 21, 150–176.
26.
NoppeneyU.PriceC. J. (2004). An fMRI study of syntactic adaptation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16, 702–713.
27.
PallierC.DevauchelleA.-D.DehaeneS. (2011). Cortical representation of the constituent structure of sentences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 108, 2522–2527.
28.
PattersonK.NestorP. J.RogersT. T. (2007). Where do you know what you know? The representation of semantic knowledge in the human brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 8, 976–987.
29.
PickeringM. J.GarrodS. (2004). Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue [Review]. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 27, 169–190.
30.
PickeringM. J.GarrodS. (2007). Do people use language production to make predictions during comprehension?Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 105–110.
31.
PoserB. A.VersluisM. J.HoogduinJ. M.NorrisD. G. (2006). BOLD contrast sensitivity enhancement and artifact reduction with multiecho EPI: Parallel-acquired inhomogeneity desensitized fMRI. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, 55, 1227–1235.
32.
PulvermüllerF.FadigaL. (2010). Active perception: Sensorimotor circuits as a cortical basis for language. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11, 351–360.
33.
ScottS. K.McGettiganC.EisnerF. (2009). A little more conversation, a little less action: Candidate roles for the motor cortex in speech perception. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 10, 295–302.
34.
ShalliceT.McLeodP.LewisK. (1985). Isolating cognitive modules with the dual-task paradigm: Are speech perception and production separate processes?The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A: Human Experimental Psychology, 37, 507–532.
35.
SnijdersT. M.VosseT.KempenG.Van BerkumJ. J. A.PeterssonK. M.HagoortP. (2009). Retrieval and unification of syntactic structure in sentence comprehension: An fMRI study using word-category ambiguity. Cerebral Cortex, 19, 1493–1503.
36.
StephensG. J.SilbertL. J.HassonU. (2010). Speaker-listener neural coupling underlies successful communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 107, 14425–14430.
37.
TanenhausM. K.CarrollJ. M.BeverT. G. (1976). Sentence-picture verification models as theories of sentence comprehension: A critique of Carpenter and Just. Psychological Review, 83, 310–317.
38.
Tzourio-MazoyerN.LandeauB.PapathanassiouD.CrivelloF.EtardO.DelcroixN.. . . JoliotM. (2002). Automated anatomical labeling of activations in SPM using a macroscopic anatomical parcellation of the MNI MRI single-subject brain. NeuroImage, 15, 273–289.
39.
WatkinsK. E.PausT. (2006). Modulation of motor excitability during speech perception: The role of Broca’s area. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16, 978–987.
40.
WeberK.IndefreyP. (2009). Syntactic priming in German- English bilinguals during sentence comprehension. NeuroImage, 46, 1164–1172.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
