Functional Brain Connectivity of Language Functions in Children Revealed by EEG and MEG: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development of language functions is of great interest to neuroscientists, as these functions are among the fundamental capacities of human cognition. For many years, researchers aimed at identifying cerebral correlates of language abilities. More recently, the development of new data analysis tools has generated a shift toward the investigation of complex cerebral networks. In 2015, Weiss-Croft and Baldeweg published a very interesting systematic review on the development of functional language networks, explored through the use of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Compared to fMRI and because of their excellent temporal resolution, magnetoencephalography (MEG) and electroencephalography (EEG) provide different and important information on brain activity. Both therefore constitute crucial neuroimaging techniques for the investigation of the maturation of functional language brain networks. The main objective of this systematic review is to provide a state of knowledge on the investigation of language-related cerebral networks in children, through the use of EEG and MEG, as well as a detailed portrait of relevant MEG and EEG data analysis methods used in that specific research context. To do so, we have summarized the results and systematically compared the methodological approach of 24 peer-reviewed EEG or MEG scientific studies that included healthy children and children with or at high risk of language disabilities, from birth up to 18 years of age. All included studies employed functional and effective connectivity measures, such as coherence, phase locking value, and Phase Slope Index, and did so using different experimental paradigms (e.g., at rest or during language-related tasks). This review will provide more insight into the use of EEG and MEG for the study of language networks in children, contribute to the current state of knowledge on the developmental path of functional connectivity in language networks during childhood and adolescence, and finally allow future studies to choose the most appropriate type of connectivity analysis.
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 | 0.003 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".