TY - JOUR
T1 - A critical review of PET studies of phonological processing
AU - Poeppel, David
N1 - Funding Information:
For their various forms of help, including critical comments on the paper and telling me when and about what I am misguided, I am indebted to Kevin Broihier, David Caplan, Suzanne Corkin, John Kim, Gary Marcus, Steven Pinker, Amy Mitchell Poeppel, Ernst Pöppel, and Kenneth Wexler. I am also grateful for the detailed constructive suggestions of the anonymous reviewers. During the preparation of the manuscript, the author was supported by the McDonnell-Pew Center for Cognitive Neuroscience at MIT. Address correspondence and reprint requests to David Poeppel, Biomagnetic Imaging Laboratory, University of California at San Francisco, 513 Parnassus, S-362, San Francisco, CA, 94143-0628. E-mail: poeppel@ itsa.ucsf.edu.
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
C2 - 8954603
AN - SCOPUS:0030463205
SN - 0093-934X
VL - 55
SP - 317
EP - 351
JO - Brain and Language
JF - Brain and Language
IS - 3
ER -