Jeanne Gallée

Dr. Jeanne Gallée

Harvard University
orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

11Years (2016-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
18 July 2022 in Nature Neuroscience
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
SMSaima Malik-Moraleda
Saima Malik-Moraleda
DADima Ayyash
Dima Ayyash
JGJeanne Gallée
Jeanne Gallée
JAJosef Affourtit
Josef Affourtit
MHMalte Hoffmann
Malte Hoffmann
EFEvelina Fedorenko
Evelina Fedorenko

3 July 2016 in Cognitive Neuroscience
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
TSTerri L. Scott
Terri L. Scott
JGJeanne Gallée
Jeanne Gallée
EFEvelina Fedorenko
Evelina Fedorenko
A set of brain regions in the frontal, temporal, and parietal lobes supports high-level linguistic processing. These regions can be reliably identified in individual subjects using fMRI, by contrasting neural responses to meaningful and structured language stimuli vs. stimuli matched for low-level properties but lacking meaning and/or structure. We here present a novel version of a language ‘localizer,’ which should be suitable for diverse populations including children and/or clinical populations who may have difficulty with reading or cognitively demanding tasks. In particular, we contrast responses to auditorily presented excerpts from engaging interviews or stories, and acoustically degraded versions of these materials. This language localizer is appealing because it uses (a) naturalistic and engaging linguistic materials, (b) auditory presentation, (c) a passive listening task, and can be easily adapted to new stimulus materials enabling comparisons of language activation in children and speakers of diverse languages.

13 March 2022 in Disability and Rehabilitation
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
AVAnna Volkmer
Anna Volkmer
JCJade Cartwright
Jade Cartwright
LRL. Ruggero
L. Ruggero
ABA. Beales
A. Beales
JGJeanne Gallée
Jeanne Gallée
DHD. Hersh
D. Hersh
Primary progressive aphasia (PPA) is a language-led dementia associated with Alzheimer’s pathology and fronto-temporal lobar degeneration. Multiple tailored speech and language interventions have b...

14 July 2022 in Neurobiology of Language
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
APAlexander M. Paunov
Alexander M. Paunov
IBIdan A. Blank
Idan A. Blank
OJOlessia Jouravlev
Olessia Jouravlev
ZMZachary Mineroff
Zachary Mineroff
JGJeanne Gallée
Jeanne Gallée
EFEvelina Fedorenko
Evelina Fedorenko
Language and social cognition, especially the ability to reason about mental states, known as theory of mind (ToM), are deeply related in development and everyday use. However, whether these cognitive faculties rely on distinct, overlapping, or the same mechanisms remains debated. Some evidence suggests that, by adulthood, language and ToM draw on largely distinct—though plausibly interacting—cortical networks. However, the broad topography of these networks is similar, and some have emphasized the importance of social content / communicative intent in the linguistic signal for eliciting responses in the language areas. Here, we combine the power of individual-subject functional localization with the naturalistic-cognition inter-subject correlation approach to illuminate the language–ToM relationship. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), we recorded neural activity as participants (n = 43) listened to stories and dialogues with mental state content (+linguistic, +ToM), viewed silent animations and live action films with mental state content but no language (−linguistic, +ToM), or listened to an expository text (+linguistic, −ToM). The ToM network robustly tracked stimuli rich in mental state information regardless of whether mental states were conveyed linguistically or non-linguistically, while tracking a +linguistic / −ToM stimulus only weakly. In contrast, the language network tracked linguistic stimuli more strongly than (a) non-linguistic stimuli, and than (b) the ToM network, and showed reliable tracking even for the linguistic condition devoid of mental state content. These findings suggest that in spite of their indisputably close links, language and ToM dissociate robustly in their neural substrates—and thus plausibly cognitive mechanisms—including during the processing of rich naturalistic materials.

9 March 2023 in American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
JGJeanne Gallée
Jeanne Gallée
JCJade Cartwright
Jade Cartwright
AVAnna Volkmer
Anna Volkmer
AWAnne Whitworth
Anne Whitworth
DHDeborah Hersh
Deborah Hersh
Purpose: Speech-language pathologists (SLPs) assess people with primary progressive aphasia (PPA) through measurements of speech, language, communication, and well-being, with the aims of identifying challenges and strengths, monitoring change, and informing treatment directions and supports. The purpose of this clinical focus article is to highlight the necessity for person-centered assessment specific to PPA and to conceptualize a framework that acknowledges the multifaceted nature of assessment for this population. In this framework, the unique challenges posed by a diagnosis of PPA are addressed with the aim to provide practical guidance for clinicians and to support reflection on current practices. Method: In clinical and research practice, assessment of people with PPA requires an ever-evolving approach that is centered on the client. In this clinical focus article, a discussion-based consensus process was used to synthesize authentic longitudinal experiences of people with PPA to explore assessment approaches, tools, and philosophies. Results: This analysis of person-centered assessment identifies seven essential components of assessment in PPA that set the foundation for the five steps of the R.A.I.S.E. Assessment framework. These components each contribute to a clear definition of assessment that reveals clients' competencies with a strengths-based focus; prioritizes the reciprocity of benefits; promotes dynamic assessment; and recognizes the complexity, evolution of assessment over time, and advocacy. Conclusions: This clinical focus article takes a novel look at assessment in PPA by stepping away from assessment practices that focus on revealing deficits and decline and, instead, provides practical recommendations through the conceptualization of a PPA-specific assessment framework. The R.A.I.S.E. Assessment framework is grounded in principles of uplifting clients through person-centered assessment, keeps pace with best practice in PPA intervention, and contributes to a supportive experience for clients and families in the face of a progressive diagnosis over time.

20 January 2021 in Brain Sciences
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
JGJeanne Gallée
Jeanne Gallée
CCClaire Cordella
Claire Cordella
EFEvelina Fedorenko
Evelina Fedorenko
DHDaisy Hochberg
Daisy Hochberg
ATAlexandra Touroutoglou
Alexandra Touroutoglou
BDBradford Dickerson
Bradford Dickerson
“Functional communication” refers to an individual’s ability to communicate effectively in his or her everyday environment, and thus is a paramount skill to monitor and target therapeutically in people with aphasia. However, traditional controlled-paradigm assessments commonly used in both research and clinical settings often fail to adequately capture this ability. In the current study, facets of functional communication were measured from picture-elicited speech samples from 70 individuals with mild primary progressive aphasia (PPA), including the three variants, and 31 age-matched controls. Building upon methods recently used by Berube et al. (2019), we measured the informativeness of speech by quantifying the content of each patient’s description that was relevant to a picture relative to the total amount of speech they produced. Importantly, form-based errors, such as mispronunciations of words, unusual word choices, or grammatical mistakes are not penalized in this approach. We found that the relative informativeness, or efficiency, of speech was preserved in non-fluent variant PPA patients as compared with controls, whereas the logopenic and semantic variant PPA patients produced significantly less informative output. Furthermore, reduced informativeness in the semantic variant is attributable to a lower production of content units and a propensity for self-referential tangents, whereas for the logopenic variant, a lower production of content units and relatively ”empty” speech and false starts contribute to this reduction. These findings demonstrate that functional communication impairment does not uniformly affect all the PPA variants and highlight the utility of naturalistic speech analysis for measuring the breakdown of functional communication in PPA.