Search

This special issue brings together a set of articles that focus on the cerebellum and language. Contributors were specifically invited from relative newcomers to this research topic, as a way to draw attention to perspectives and findings that might otherwise be overlooked. This editorial provides an overview of the issue from a historical context that draws upon more than 25 years of research on the linguistic cerebellum., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Skilled visual word recognition is thought to rely upon a particular region within the left fusiform gyrus, the visual word form area (VWFA). We investigated whether an individual (AA1) with pure alexia resulting from acquired damage to the VWFA territory could learn an alphabetic "FaceFont" orthography, in which faces rather than typical letter-like units are used to represent phonemes. FaceFont was designed to distinguish between perceptual versus phonological influences on the VWFA. AA1 was unable to learn more than five face-phoneme mappings, performing well below that of controls. AA1 succeeded, however, in learning and using a proto-syllabary comprising 15 face-syllable mappings. These results suggest that the VWFA provides a "linguistic bridge" into left hemisphere speech and language regions, irrespective of the perceptual characteristics of a written language. They also suggest that some individuals may be able to acquire a non-alphabetic writing system more readily than an alphabetic writing system., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Ten cerebellar patients were compared to 10 control subjects on a verbal working memory task in which the phonological similarity of the words to be remembered and their modality of presentation were manipulated. Cerebellar patients demonstrated a reduction of the phonological similarity effect relative to controls. Further, this reduction did not depend systematically upon the presentation modality. These results first document that qualitative differences in verbal working memory may be observed following cerebellar damage, indicating altered cognitive processing, even though behavioral output as measured by the digit span may be within normal limits. However, the results also present problems for the hypothesis that the cerebellar role is specifically associated with articulatory rehearsal as conceptualized in the Baddeley-Hitch model of working memory.

Poeppel (1996) raises a number of criticisms about the methods and reported results for eight studies of phonological processing from six different neuroimaging laboratories. We would freely admit that valid criticisms of PET methodology can be made and that, like any method, it has limitations; in fact, we and others have engaged in such critical commentary (Steinmetz & Seitz, 1991; Sergent et al., 1992; Demonet, 1995; Fiez et al., 1996a; Zatorre et al., 1996). Poeppel's analysis, though, falls far short of providing new insights into the limitations of PET methodology or the means by which future functional imaging studies could be improved. Many of Poeppel's criticisms derive from a failure to understand some of the fundamental issues which motivate functional imaging studies, including those he reviews. However, we are grateful to our critic inasmuch as he offers us the challenge to clarify our positions on important aspects of our experimental design, analysis, and interpretation. In our discussion of these issues, we begin with a general commentary, followed by specific comments from individual authors.