Past exam of the the neurobiology of speech and language course of the University of Oxford / 2022 / 5

Sign languages recruit much of the left-dominant frontotemporal language network while also engaging modality-dependent visual, parietal and motor systems. The evidence supports shared organisation across modalities more strongly than it proves that the same neural populations contain fully amodal phonological, semantic and syntactic codes. Natural sign languages have conventional sublexical structure and grammar; they are not simply gestures illustrating spoken words.

Brain-lesion evidence provides an important starting point. In Gregory Hickok's study, 19 lifelong signers with unilateral lesions completed single-sign and simple/complex sentence comprehension tasks. Left temporal involvement was associated with substantial impairment across tasks; right-lesion and other groups performed well on the simpler conditions, with more difficulty on complex material. The result argues against assigning language to the right hemisphere merely because signs are visual and spatial. Complex-command performance can also reflect memory, spatial processing or general comprehension demands.^[ref]

Functional imaging identifies both common and distinct components. Karen Emmorey and colleagues compared sign and speech within native hearing ASL–English bilinguals using PET for picture naming and fMRI for sentence comprehension. Shared language-related responses coexisted with greater parietal recruitment for signing and different temporal responses for speech. The within-person comparison reduces confounding between hearing status and language modality. It also makes clear that motor output, visual movement and auditory feedback contribute to the total activation pattern.^[ref]

An amodal representation is stronger than a common anatomical location: it should capture relevant information independently of how that information enters or leaves the system. A shared inferior-frontal mean response can arise from common control demands, different intermingled populations or the same computation over differently formatted representations. This is the distinction expressed by regional activation does not identify a neural code. Conjunction of significant maps is useful evidence for shared territory, but cannot by itself establish identity of the represented information.

For phonology, the relevant units need not be sounds. A sign can be distinguished by handshape, location and movement, just as speech forms can differ in sublexical features. Mairéad MacSweeney's study compared BSL location judgments with English rhyme judgments using picture-based tasks. A partly shared left frontoparietal network was modulated by language, hearing status and age of first acquisition. Thus sublexical form analysis can share network resources across modalities, while the differences argue against an entirely invariant implementation. Delayed access to a first language must be separated from deafness itself.^[ref]

A stronger phonological test would match response selection and difficulty, contrast legal with carefully controlled sublexical combinations, and include nonlinguistic hand-movement judgments. Even successful cross-modal decoding would need interpretation: sign handshape and spoken sound have no automatic one-to-one physical mapping. An abstract combinatorial relation could be shared without every modality-specific feature having an amodal counterpart.

For semantics, signs and spoken words can access the same conceptual relations while having different forms. Emmorey's within-bilingual comprehension experiment used detection of semantic anomalies and identified overlapping frontotemporal responses with modality-dependent components. This supports common meaning-related processing, although anomaly detection also requires monitoring and a decision. A more specific test would train a decoder on one modality and test concept identity in the other, holding out stimuli and separating meaning from the picture, response or decision used to measure it.^[ref]

For syntax, Kuniyoshi L. Sakai's comparison of Japanese Sign Language and Japanese sentences found common left-dominant frontal and temporoparietal recruitment for comprehension. Comparing sentence comprehension with sentential nonword detection improved specificity beyond passive sign viewing. Different participant groups and potentially different demands nevertheless prevent inferring identical neuronal syntax codes. Spatial referent tracking, prosody and grammatical relations may draw on partly overlapping resources rather than a single modality-free operation.^[ref]

The best design combines native Deaf signers, hearing native signers and hearing nonsigners where appropriate, with careful measurement of first-language access and proficiency. Nonlinguistic biological motion, matched visual complexity, meaningful versus meaningless sequences and matched response demands help identify what each contrast removes. Individual functional localisation, lesion convergence and cross-modal multivariate tests are stronger together than any activation map alone. A failed decoder does not establish separate representations if measurement noise or anatomical alignment prevents generalisation.