Late plasticity for language in a child’s non‐dominant hemisphere
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability of the right hemisphere to sustain the acquisition or the recovery of language after extensive damage to the left hemisphere has been essentially related to the age at the time of injury. Better language abilities are acquired when the insult occurs in early childhood (perinatal insults) compared with later occurrence. However, while previous studies have described the neuropsychological pattern of language development in typical cases, the neural bases of such plasticity remain unexplored. Non-invasive functional MRI (fMRI) is a unique tool to assess the neural correlates of brain plasticity through repeated studies, but the technique has not been widely used in children because of methodological limitations. Plasticity of language was studied in a boy who developed intractable epilepsy related to Rasmussen's syndrome of the left hemisphere at age 5 years 6 months, after normal language acquisition. The first fMRI study at age 6 years 10 months showed left lateralization of language networks during a word fluency task. After left hemispherotomy at age 9 years, the child experienced profound aphasia and alexia, with rapid recovery of receptive language but slower and incomplete recovery of expressive language and reading. Postoperative fMRI at age 10 years 6 months showed a shift of language-related networks to the right during expressive and receptive tasks. Right activation was seen mainly in regions that could not be detected preoperatively, but mirrored those previously found in the left hemisphere (inferior frontal, temporal and parietal cortex), suggesting reorganization in a pre-existing bilateral network. In addition, neuropsychological data of this case support the hypothesis of innately more bilateral distribution of receptive than expressive language. This first serial fMRI study illustrates the great plasticity of the child's brain and the ability of the right hemisphere to take over some expressive language functions, even at a relatively late age. It also suggests a limit for removal of the dominant hemisphere beyond the age of 6 years, a classical limit for the critical period of language acquisition.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".