A critical review of PET studies of phonological processing

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

The use of positron emission tomography to identify sensory and motor systems in humans in vivo has been very successful. In contrast, studies of cognitive processes have not always generated results that can be reliably interpreted. A meta-analysis of five positron emission tomography studies designed to engage phonological processing (Petersen, Fox, Pusher, Mintun, and Raichle, 1989; Zatorre, Evans, Meyer, and Gjedde 1992; Sergent, Zuck, Levesque, and MacDonald, 1992; Demonet, Chollet, Ramsay, Cardebar, Nespoulous, Wise, and Frackowiak, 1992; and Paulesu, Frith, and Frakowiak, 1993) reveals that the results do not converge as expected: Very similar experiments designed to isolate the same language processes show activation in nonoverlapping cortical areas. Although these PET confirm the importance of left perisylvian cortex, the experiments implicate distinct, nonoverlapping perisylvian areas. Because of the divergence of results, it is premature to attribute certain language processes or the elementary computations underlying the construction of the relevant linguistic representations to specific cerebral regions on the basis of positron emission tomographic results. It is argued that this sparse-overlap result is due (1) to insufficiently detailed task decomposition and task-control matching, (2) to insufficient contact with cognitive psychology, psycholinguistics, and linguistic theory, and (3) to some inherent problems in using subtractive PET methodology to study the neural representation and processing of language.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)317-351
Number of pages35
JournalBrain and Language
Volume55
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1996

Fingerprint

Language
Linguistics
Positron-Emission Tomography
language
Psycholinguistics
linguistics
psycholinguistics
experiment
divergence
activation
Meta-Analysis
psychology
contact
Electrons
Psychology
methodology
Phonological Processing
Critical Review
Experiment
Positron Emission Tomography

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Language and Linguistics
  • Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
  • Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology
  • Neuroscience(all)

Cite this

A critical review of PET studies of phonological processing. / Poeppel, David.

In: Brain and Language, Vol. 55, No. 3, 12.1996, p. 317-351.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{d3def0bfbc794b96aa34d6bfb7375553,
title = "A critical review of PET studies of phonological processing",
abstract = "The use of positron emission tomography to identify sensory and motor systems in humans in vivo has been very successful. In contrast, studies of cognitive processes have not always generated results that can be reliably interpreted. A meta-analysis of five positron emission tomography studies designed to engage phonological processing (Petersen, Fox, Pusher, Mintun, and Raichle, 1989; Zatorre, Evans, Meyer, and Gjedde 1992; Sergent, Zuck, Levesque, and MacDonald, 1992; Demonet, Chollet, Ramsay, Cardebar, Nespoulous, Wise, and Frackowiak, 1992; and Paulesu, Frith, and Frakowiak, 1993) reveals that the results do not converge as expected: Very similar experiments designed to isolate the same language processes show activation in nonoverlapping cortical areas. Although these PET confirm the importance of left perisylvian cortex, the experiments implicate distinct, nonoverlapping perisylvian areas. Because of the divergence of results, it is premature to attribute certain language processes or the elementary computations underlying the construction of the relevant linguistic representations to specific cerebral regions on the basis of positron emission tomographic results. It is argued that this sparse-overlap result is due (1) to insufficiently detailed task decomposition and task-control matching, (2) to insufficient contact with cognitive psychology, psycholinguistics, and linguistic theory, and (3) to some inherent problems in using subtractive PET methodology to study the neural representation and processing of language.",
author = "David Poeppel",
year = "1996",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1006/brln.1996.0108",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "55",
pages = "317--351",
journal = "Brain and Language",
issn = "0093-934X",
publisher = "Academic Press Inc.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A critical review of PET studies of phonological processing

AU - Poeppel, David

PY - 1996/12

Y1 - 1996/12

N2 - The use of positron emission tomography to identify sensory and motor systems in humans in vivo has been very successful. In contrast, studies of cognitive processes have not always generated results that can be reliably interpreted. A meta-analysis of five positron emission tomography studies designed to engage phonological processing (Petersen, Fox, Pusher, Mintun, and Raichle, 1989; Zatorre, Evans, Meyer, and Gjedde 1992; Sergent, Zuck, Levesque, and MacDonald, 1992; Demonet, Chollet, Ramsay, Cardebar, Nespoulous, Wise, and Frackowiak, 1992; and Paulesu, Frith, and Frakowiak, 1993) reveals that the results do not converge as expected: Very similar experiments designed to isolate the same language processes show activation in nonoverlapping cortical areas. Although these PET confirm the importance of left perisylvian cortex, the experiments implicate distinct, nonoverlapping perisylvian areas. Because of the divergence of results, it is premature to attribute certain language processes or the elementary computations underlying the construction of the relevant linguistic representations to specific cerebral regions on the basis of positron emission tomographic results. It is argued that this sparse-overlap result is due (1) to insufficiently detailed task decomposition and task-control matching, (2) to insufficient contact with cognitive psychology, psycholinguistics, and linguistic theory, and (3) to some inherent problems in using subtractive PET methodology to study the neural representation and processing of language.

AB - The use of positron emission tomography to identify sensory and motor systems in humans in vivo has been very successful. In contrast, studies of cognitive processes have not always generated results that can be reliably interpreted. A meta-analysis of five positron emission tomography studies designed to engage phonological processing (Petersen, Fox, Pusher, Mintun, and Raichle, 1989; Zatorre, Evans, Meyer, and Gjedde 1992; Sergent, Zuck, Levesque, and MacDonald, 1992; Demonet, Chollet, Ramsay, Cardebar, Nespoulous, Wise, and Frackowiak, 1992; and Paulesu, Frith, and Frakowiak, 1993) reveals that the results do not converge as expected: Very similar experiments designed to isolate the same language processes show activation in nonoverlapping cortical areas. Although these PET confirm the importance of left perisylvian cortex, the experiments implicate distinct, nonoverlapping perisylvian areas. Because of the divergence of results, it is premature to attribute certain language processes or the elementary computations underlying the construction of the relevant linguistic representations to specific cerebral regions on the basis of positron emission tomographic results. It is argued that this sparse-overlap result is due (1) to insufficiently detailed task decomposition and task-control matching, (2) to insufficient contact with cognitive psychology, psycholinguistics, and linguistic theory, and (3) to some inherent problems in using subtractive PET methodology to study the neural representation and processing of language.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0030463205&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0030463205&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1006/brln.1996.0108

DO - 10.1006/brln.1996.0108

M3 - Article

VL - 55

SP - 317

EP - 351

JO - Brain and Language

JF - Brain and Language

SN - 0093-934X

IS - 3

ER -