title: Neural mechanisms of verb argument structure processing in agrammatic aphasic and healthy age-matched listeners.
abstract: Processing of lexical verbs involves automatic access to argument structure entries entailed within the verb's representation. Recent neuroimaging studies with young normal listeners suggest that this involves bilateral posterior peri-sylvian tissue, with graded activation in these regions on the basis of argument structure complexity. The aim of the present study was to examine the neural mechanisms of verb processing using fMRI in older normal volunteers and patients with stroke-induced agrammatic aphasia, a syndrome in which verb, as compared to noun, production often is selectively impaired, but verb comprehension in both on-line and off-line tasks is spared. Fourteen healthy listeners and five age-matched aphasic patients performed a lexical decision task, which examined verb processing by argument structure complexity, namely, one-argument [i.e., intransitive (v1)], two-argument [i.e., transitive (v2)], and three-argument (v3) verbs. Results for the age-matched listeners largely replicated those for younger participants studied by Thompson et al. [Thompson, C. K., Bonakdarpour, B., Fix, S. C., Blumenfeld, H. K., Parrish, T. B., Gitelman, D. R., et al. Neural correlates of verb argument structure processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19, 1753-1767, 2007]: v3 - v1 comparisons showed activation of the angular gyrus in both hemispheres and this same heteromodal region was activated in the left hemisphere in the (v2 + v3) - v1 contrast. Similar results were derived for the agrammatic aphasic patients, however, activation was unilateral (in the right hemisphere for three participants) rather than bilateral, likely because these patients' lesions extended to the left temporo-parietal region. All performed the task with high accuracy and, despite differences in lesion site and extent, they recruited spared tissue in the same regions as healthy subjects. Consistent with psycholinguistic models of sentence processing, these findings indicate that the posterior language network is engaged for processing verb argument structure and is crucial for semantic integration of argument structure information.
authors.affiliation: Department of CSD and Neurology, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208, USA. ckthom@northwestern.edu
authors.forename: Cynthia K
authors.initials: CK
authors.lastname: Thompson
authors.forename: Borna
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Bonakdarpour
authors.forename: Stephen F
authors.initials: SF
authors.lastname: Fix
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D001039:Aphasia, Broca / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000209:etiology / Q000503:physiopathology*; D001921:Brain / Q000502:physiology*; D001931:Brain Mapping / Q000379:methods; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D010775:Photic Stimulation / Q000379:methods*; D011597:Psychomotor Performance / Q000502:physiology*; D012660:Semantics; D020521:Stroke / Q000150:complications / Q000503:physiopathology; D014796:Visual Perception / Q000502:physiology*; D014936:Word Association Tests
references.citation: Brain Lang. 2000 Aug;74(1):1-25
references.pmid: 10924214
references.citation: Neuroreport. 2004 Aug 26;15(12):1891-4
references.pmid: 15305131
references.citation: J Cogn Neurosci. 2007 Sep;19(9):1542-55
references.pmid: 17714015
references.citation: Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep. 2008 Nov;8(6):475-83
references.pmid: 18957184
references.citation: Brain Lang. 1990 Jan;38(1):21-47
references.pmid: 2302544
references.citation: Neuropsychol Rev. 2007 Jun;17(2):157-77
references.pmid: 17525865
references.citation: J Commun Disord. 2000 Jul-Aug;33(4):345-55; quiz 355-6
references.pmid: 11001161
references.citation: Cereb Cortex. 2007 Aug;17(8):1958-69
references.pmid: 17101687
references.citation: Brain. 1999 Dec;122 ( Pt 12):2337-44
references.pmid: 10581226
references.citation: J Cogn Neurosci. 2006 Apr;18(4):665-79
references.pmid: 16768368
references.citation: Hum Brain Mapp. 2005 Jun;25(2):212-21
references.pmid: 15846769
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 1994 Oct;101(4):676-703
references.pmid: 7984711
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1996 Sep;22(5):1219-48
references.pmid: 8805821
references.citation: J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1997 Apr;40(2):228-44
references.pmid: 9130196
references.citation: Brain Lang. 2009 Oct;111(1):20-35
references.pmid: 19695692
references.citation: Neurology. 1996 Dec;47(6):1504-11
references.pmid: 8960735
references.citation: Aphasiology. 2005 Nov;19(10-11):1021-1036
references.pmid: 17410280
references.citation: Neuroimage. 2002 Apr;15(4):870-8
references.pmid: 11906227
references.citation: Neuroimage. 2007 Jun;36(2):322-31
references.pmid: 17467297
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1991 Sep;17(5):983-96
references.pmid: 1834779
references.citation: Brain. 2000 Dec;123 Pt 12:2552-66
references.pmid: 11099456
references.citation: Brain Lang. 2000 Feb 15;71(3):391-9
references.pmid: 10716869
references.citation: J Cogn Neurosci. 2007 Nov;19(11):1753-67
references.pmid: 17958479
references.citation: Neurology. 2000 Dec 26;55(12):1883-94
references.pmid: 11134389
references.citation: Rev Neurol (Paris). 1999;155(9):725-30
references.pmid: 10528357
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 1999 Jun;3(6):223-232
references.pmid: 10354575
references.citation: Curr Opin Neurol. 2005 Aug;18(4):429-34
references.pmid: 16003120
references.citation: Neuroimage. 2003 Aug;19(4):1787-801
references.pmid: 12948733
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1993 Jun 1;90(11):4957-60
references.pmid: 8506341
references.citation: Neuroimage. 2003 Sep;20(1):520-8
references.pmid: 14527612
references.citation: J Cogn Neurosci. 1993 Summer;5(3):345-62
references.pmid: 23972222
references.citation: Brain Lang. 2000 Jul;73(3):347-92
references.pmid: 10860561
references.citation: Cognition. 1992 Mar;42(1-3):107-42
references.pmid: 1582154
references.citation: Neuroimage. 2005 May 15;26(1):221-33
references.pmid: 15862222
references.citation: Neuroimage. 2004 Dec;23(4):1308-16
references.pmid: 15589095
references.citation: Stroke. 1999 Nov;30(11):2331-40
references.pmid: 10548667
references.citation: Brain Lang. 2007 Sep;102(3):262-72
references.pmid: 17289140
references.citation: Neuroimage. 2003 Jul;19(3):1233-9
references.pmid: 12880848
references.citation: Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2006 Apr;16(2):240-6
references.pmid: 16563739
references.citation: Biol Psychol. 2007 Mar;74(3):374-88
references.pmid: 17150298
references.citation: J Psycholinguist Res. 1989 Mar;18(2):223-43
references.pmid: 2738859
references.citation: Brain Lang. 1995 Aug;50(2):151-200
references.pmid: 7583186
references.citation: J Cogn Neurosci. 2005 Feb;17(2):273-81
references.pmid: 15811239
references.citation: Cereb Cortex. 2005 Jul;15(7):986-94
references.pmid: 15513929
references.citation: Neurosci Lett. 2004 Jan 9;354(2):111-4
references.pmid: 14698451
references.citation: Neuroimage. 2003 Nov;20 Suppl 1:S18-29
references.pmid: 14597293
references.citation: Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 2005 Aug;24(3):355-63
references.pmid: 16099349
references.citation: Stroke. 1999 Apr;30(4):749-54
references.pmid: 10187873
references.citation: Neurocase. 2002;8(5):376-86
references.pmid: 12499412
references.citation: Cortex. 1984 Jun;20(2):207-20
references.pmid: 6204813
references.citation: Neuroimage. 1999 Jul;10(1):6-14
references.pmid: 10385577
references.citation: Stroke. 2004 Sep;35(9):2171-6
references.pmid: 15297629
references.citation: Brain Lang. 1993 Oct;45(3):423-47
references.pmid: 8269333
references.citation: Brain Lang. 2004 Jun;89(3):439-49
references.pmid: 15120536
references.citation: Neuroreport. 2004 Jan 19;15(1):129-33
references.pmid: 15106844
references.citation: Eur J Neurosci. 2007 Feb;25(3):881-9
references.pmid: 17298597
references.citation: Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 2004 Feb;18(3):322-36
references.pmid: 14741318
references.citation: Neuroimage. 1996 Jun;3(3 Pt 1):185-94
references.pmid: 9345489
references.citation: Brain Lang. 2002 Apr-Jun;81(1-3):432-44
references.pmid: 12081411
references.citation: Hum Brain Mapp. 2007 Apr;28(4):303-14
references.pmid: 16977624
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1993 May;19(3):528-53
references.pmid: 8501429
references.citation: Cognition. 1993 Apr;47(1):59-87
references.pmid: 8482071
references.citation: Neuroimage. 2001 Jan;13(1):161-75
references.pmid: 11133319
references.citation: Neuroimage. 2004 Apr;21(4):1533-41
references.pmid: 15050577
references.citation: Brain. 2001 Aug;124(Pt 8):1619-34
references.pmid: 11459753
references.citation: J Cogn Neurosci. 2006 Aug;18(8):1304-13
references.pmid: 16859416
references.citation: J Cogn Neurosci. 2000;12 Suppl 2:24-34
references.pmid: 11506645
references.citation: J Commun Disord. 2000 Jul-Aug;33(4):357-66
references.pmid: 11001162
references.citation: Brain Lang. 2004 Jan;88(1):1-20
references.pmid: 14698726
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2003 Sep;14(5):433-40
references.pmid: 12930473
references.citation: Neuropsychology. 2003 Oct;17(4):658-74
references.pmid: 14599278
references.citation: Brain Lang. 2005 Apr;93(1):95-105
references.pmid: 15766771
references.citation: Neuroimage. 2004 May;22(1):29-41
references.pmid: 15109995
references.citation: Brain Lang. 1990 Jul;39(1):14-32
references.pmid: 2207618
references.citation: Semin Speech Lang. 2004 May;25(2):181-91
references.pmid: 15118944
references.citation: Brain Lang. 1995 Sep;50(3):259-81
references.pmid: 7583190