Left hemisphere regions are critical for language in the face of early left focal brain injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A predominant theory regarding early stroke and its effect on language development, is that early left hemisphere lesions trigger compensatory processes that allow the right hemisphere to assume dominant language functions, and this is thought to underlie the near normal language development observed after early stroke. To test this theory, we used functional magnetic resonance imaging to examine brain activity during category fluency in participants who had sustained pre- or perinatal left hemisphere stroke (n = 25) and in neurologically normal siblings (n = 27). In typically developing children, performance of a category fluency task elicits strong involvement of left frontal and lateral temporal regions and a lesser involvement of right hemisphere structures. In our cohort of atypically developing participants with early stroke, expressive and receptive language skills correlated with activity in the same left inferior frontal regions that support language processing in neurologically normal children. This was true independent of either the amount of brain injury or the extent that the injury was located in classical cortical language processing areas. Participants with bilateral activation in left and right superior temporal-inferior parietal regions had better language function than those with either predominantly left- or right-sided unilateral activation. The advantage conferred by left inferior frontal and bilateral temporal involvement demonstrated in our study supports a strong predisposition for typical neural language organization, despite an intervening injury, and argues against models suggesting that the right hemisphere fully accommodates language function following early injury.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".