Language Learning without Control: The Role of the PFC

Learning takes place throughout lifetime but differs in infants and adults because of the development of the PFC, a brain region responsible for cognitive control. To test this hypothesis, adults were investigated in a language learning paradigm under inhibitory, cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation over PFC. The experiment included a learning session interspersed with test phases and a test-only session. The stimulus material required the learning of grammatical dependencies between two elements in a novel language. In a parallel design, cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation over the left PFC, right PFC, or sham stimulation was applied during the learning session but not during the test-only session. Event-related brain potentials (ERPs) were recorded during both sessions. Whereas no ERP learning effects were observed during the learning session, different ERP learning effects as a function of prior stimulation type were found during the test-only session, although behavioral learning success was equal across conditions. With sham stimulation, the ERP learning effect was reflected in a centro-parietal N400-like negativity indicating lexical processes. Inhibitory stimulation over the left PFC, but not over the right PFC, led to a late positivity similar to that previously observed in prelinguistic infants indicating associative learning. The present data demonstrate that adults can learn with and without cognitive control using different learning mechanisms. In the presence of cognitive control, adult language learning is lexically guided, whereas it appears to be associative in nature when PFC control is downregulated.

[1]  Caterina Breitenstein,et al.  Development and validation of a language learning model for behavioral and functional-imaging studies , 2002, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[2]  A. Friederici Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing , 2002, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[3]  A. Friederici,et al.  Discrimination of word stress in early infant perception: electrophysiological evidence. , 2004, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[4]  Michael Ramscar,et al.  Developmental change and the nature of learning in childhood , 2007, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[5]  Colin M. Brown,et al.  The N400 as a function of the level of processing. , 1995, Psychophysiology.

[6]  J. Donoghue,et al.  Learning-induced LTP in neocortex. , 2000, Science.

[7]  David Badre,et al.  Cognitive control, hierarchy, and the rostro–caudal organization of the frontal lobes , 2008, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[8]  Anne-Catherine Bachoud-Lévi,et al.  Different Neurophysiological Mechanisms Underlying Word and Rule Extraction from Speech , 2007, PloS one.

[9]  Ellen F. Lau,et al.  A cortical network for semantics: (de)constructing the N400 , 2008, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[10]  W. Prinz,et al.  Capturing regularities in event sequences: Evidence for two mechanisms , 2007, Brain Research.

[11]  E. Newport,et al.  PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Research Article INCIDENTAL LANGUAGE LEARNING: Ustening (and Learning) out of the Comer of Your Ear , 2022 .

[12]  R. Gómez Variability and Detection of Invariant Structure , 2002, Psychological science.

[13]  Claudia Männel,et al.  Auditory perception at the root of language learning , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[14]  M. Farah,et al.  Role of left inferior prefrontal cortex in retrieval of semantic knowledge: a reevaluation. , 1997, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[15]  P. Hagoort On Broca, brain, and binding: a new framework , 2005, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[16]  M. Goldsmith,et al.  Statistical Learning by 8-Month-Old Infants , 1996 .

[17]  Stefan Elmer,et al.  Behavioral and Brain Functions , 2009 .

[18]  A. Friederici,et al.  Differential task effects on semantic and syntactic processes as revealed by ERPs. , 2002, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[19]  A. Antal,et al.  Right Hemisphere Advantage in Statistical Learning: Evidence From a Probabilistic Sequence Learning Task , 2015, Brain Stimulation.

[20]  Angela D. Friederici,et al.  Precursors to Natural Grammar Learning: Preliminary Evidence from 4-Month-Old Infants , 2011, PloS one.

[21]  S. Thompson-Schill,et al.  The frontal lobes and the regulation of mental activity , 2005, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

[22]  Stefan Knecht,et al.  Noninvasive Brain Stimulation Improves Language Learning , 2008, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[23]  P. Hagoort,et al.  The inferior frontal cortex in artificial syntax processing: An rTMS study , 2008, Brain Research.

[24]  W. Ritter,et al.  Mismatch detection and the latency of temporal judgements. , 1992, Psychophysiology.

[25]  J. Saffran The Use of Predictive Dependencies in Language Learning , 2001 .

[26]  D. Friedman,et al.  The novelty P3: an event-related brain potential (ERP) sign of the brain's evaluation of novelty , 2001, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews.

[27]  F. Mauguière,et al.  Revisiting the oddball paradigm. Non-target vs neutral stimuli and the evaluation of ERP attentional effects , 1992, Neuropsychologia.

[28]  K. Crowley,et al.  A review of the evidence for P2 being an independent component process: age, sleep and modality , 2004, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[29]  Jutta L. Mueller,et al.  Mass counts: ERP correlates of non-adjacent dependency learning under different exposure conditions , 2011, Neuroscience Letters.

[30]  A. Friederici,et al.  Syntactic learning by mere exposure - An ERP study in adult learners , 2009, BMC Neuroscience.

[31]  Paavo Alku,et al.  Statistical language learning in neonates revealed by event-related brain potentials , 2009, BMC Neuroscience.

[32]  M. Phelps,et al.  Maturational changes in cerebral function in infants determined by 18FDG positron emission tomography. , 1986, Science.

[33]  Arnaud Delorme,et al.  EEGLAB: an open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis , 2004, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[34]  Michael Ramscar,et al.  Cognition Without Control When a Little Frontal Lobe Goes a Long Way , 2009 .

[35]  Adam Gazzaley,et al.  Top‐Down Modulation and Normal Aging , 2007, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[36]  M. Koslowsky,et al.  tDCS polarity effects in motor and cognitive domains: a meta-analytical review , 2011, Experimental Brain Research.

[37]  Helen J. Neville,et al.  Maturational Constraints on the Recruitment of Early Processes for Syntactic Processing , 2011, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[38]  Andrea Weber,et al.  When One Person's Mistake Is Another's Standard Usage: The Effect of Foreign Accent on Syntactic Processing , 2012, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[39]  M. Nitsche,et al.  Safety criteria for transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in humans , 2003, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[40]  C. Summerfield,et al.  An information theoretical approach to prefrontal executive function , 2007, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[41]  M. Nitsche,et al.  Excitability changes induced in the human motor cortex by weak transcranial direct current stimulation , 2000, The Journal of physiology.

[42]  M. Corbetta,et al.  Control of goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention in the brain , 2002, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[43]  Walter Paulus,et al.  Facilitation of visuo‐motor learning by transcranial direct current stimulation of the motor and extrastriate visual areas in humans , 2004, The European journal of neuroscience.