As discussed by ourselves[1xRight on in sign language. Paulesu, E. and Mehler, J. Nature. 1998; 392: 233–234Crossref | PubMed | Scopus (17)See all References][1]and also by Hickok and colleagues in the preceding comment[2xWhat's right about the neural organization of sign language? A perspective on recent neuroimaging results. Hickok, G., Bellugi, U., and Klima, E. Trends Cognit. Sci. 1998; 2: 465–468Abstract | Full Text | Full Text PDF | PubMed | Scopus (33)See all References][2]and elsewhere[3xLanguage, modality and the brain. Bellugi, U., Poizner, H., and Klima, E. Trends Neurosci. 1989; 12: 380–388Abstract | Full Text PDF | PubMed | Scopus (79)See all References][3], we believe that the available evidence from fMRI and other studies points to a left hemispheric dominance for language, even in the case of sign language[4xThe neurobiology of sign language and its implications for the neural basis of language. Hickok, G., Bellugi, U., and Klima, E. Nature. 1996; 381: 699–702Crossref | PubMed | Scopus (97)See all References, 5xNeural correlates of thinking in sign language. McGuire, P. et al. NeuroReport. 1997; 8: 695–698Crossref | PubMedSee all References, 6xSign language aphasia during left-hemisphere Amytal injection. Damasio, A. et al. Nature. 1986; 322: 363–365Crossref | PubMed | Scopus (35)See all References]. However, while the left hemispheric activations seen in recent imaging data for sign language could be largely predicted from lesion data, we are still inclined to believe, in contrast to Hickok et al.[2xWhat's right about the neural organization of sign language? A perspective on recent neuroimaging results. Hickok, G., Bellugi, U., and Klima, E. Trends Cognit. Sci. 1998; 2: 465–468Abstract | Full Text | Full Text PDF | PubMed | Scopus (33)See all References][2], that the right hemispheric activations described by Neville et al.[7xCerebral organization for language in deaf and hearing subjects: biological constraints and effects of experience. Neville, H. et al. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 1998; 95: 922–929Crossref | PubMed | Scopus (302)See all References][7]are not artefactual—even though a real surprise, given the expectation from patient data. The baseline for the sign-language comprehension task used by Neville et al. (observation of non-linguistic gestures made by a signer) was closely matched to the experimental task. Auditory-language comprehension tasks using a similarly close baseline, such as backwards speech, do not show such prominent activations in the right hemisphere[8xThe bilingual brain: proficiency and age of acquisition of the second language. Perani, D. et al. Brain. 1998; 121: 1841–1852Crossref | PubMed | Scopus (370)See all References][8].As we proposed in our commentary[1xRight on in sign language. Paulesu, E. and Mehler, J. Nature. 1998; 392: 233–234Crossref | PubMed | Scopus (17)See all References][1], reconciliation of the mismatch between functional imaging and lesion data will require further investigations on both sides. Even if our suggestion[1xRight on in sign language. Paulesu, E. and Mehler, J. Nature. 1998; 392: 233–234Crossref | PubMed | Scopus (17)See all References][1]turned out to be true—that the right hemispheric activations seen for sign language by Neville et al. could have been due to prosodic processing[9xDominant language functions of the right hemisphere? Prosody and emotional gesturing. Ross, E. and Mesulam, M. Arch. Neurol. 1979; 36: 144–148Crossref | PubMed | Scopus (381)See all References][9]—this would still be a challenge for our understanding of the biological causes of the regional brain distribution of linguistic competences in both hearing and congenitally deaf subjects. Left-sided `dominance', together with right-sided linguistic competence of the kind seen in hearing subjects[9xDominant language functions of the right hemisphere? Prosody and emotional gesturing. Ross, E. and Mesulam, M. Arch. Neurol. 1979; 36: 144–148Crossref | PubMed | Scopus (381)See all References, 10xThe role of the right hemisphere in the interpretation of figurative aspects of language: a positron emission tomography activation study. Bottini, G. et al. Brain. 1994; 117: 1231–1253Crossref | PubMed | Scopus (407)See all References], is a complex scenario that is not evaluated by the hypotheses usually discussed in neuro-linguistics and neither is it discussed by Hickok et al. in their present comment.
Read full abstract