ArticleActa psychologica2025
An approach to measuring language-specific brain function in developmental language disorder.
Article in Acta psychologica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeEvidence characterizing brain function in developmental language disorder (DLD) is limited because measured brain function may reflect individual variability in task performance and error processing. This methodological study began characterizing language-specific brain function by administering the adaptive semantic matching paradigm during functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to individuals with DLD and by using a Bayesian analytical approach appropriate for small clinical samples. METHODS AND
resultsThe adaptive semantic matching paradigm involved word-similarity judgements (e.g., age-night) and perceptual-similarity judgements of symbol strings (e.g., τουχφ-τουχε; i.e., control condition) during fMRI scanning. The adaptive component involved increases or decreases in task difficulty depending on in-the-moment individual participant accuracy (2-up-1-down adaptive weighted staircase, converges >80 % accuracy); controlling for individual variability in task performance. Bayesian analyses involved model comparison and second-level generalized linear models. Participants were adolescents with DLD (n = 5) and neurotypical controls (n = 12). Analyses indicated group differences in activation for right hemisphere frontal, temporal, and semantic language homologue networks, and no reliable differences in left hemisphere language networks or in lateralization. CONCLUSIONS AND CONTRIBUTIONS: The methodological contributions of the current study were the adaptive paradigm that elicits language-specific function and an analytical approach that is reliable for small, heterogeneous samples. These methods may differentiate whether variability in left hemisphere and lateralization patterns reflect between-study differences on in-scanner task performance versus the heterogeneous DLD profile. Future research guided by these methods and findings may reveal new insights that inform theoretical and clinical models of this highly prevalent neurodevelopmental condition.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.