Most people have strong left-brain lateralisation for language, with a minority showing right- or bilateral language representation. On some receptive language tasks, however, lateralisation appears to be reduced or absent. This contrasting pattern raises the question of whether and how language laterality may fractionate within individuals. Building on our prior work, we postulated (a) that there can be dissociations in lateralisation of different components of language, and (b) these would be more common in left-handers. A subsidiary hypothesis was that laterality indices will cluster according to two underlying factors corresponding to whether they involve generation of words or sentences, versus receptive language. We tested these predictions in two stages: At Step 1 an online laterality battery (Dichotic listening, Rhyme Decision and Word Comprehension) was given to 621 individuals (56% left-handers); At Step 2, functional transcranial Doppler ultrasound (fTCD) was used with 230 of these individuals (51% left-handers). 108 left-handers and 101 right-handers gave useable data on a battery of three language generation and three receptive language tasks. Neither the online nor fTCD measures supported the notion of a single language laterality factor. In general, for both online and fTCD measures, tests of language generation were left-lateralised. In contrast, the receptive tasks were at best weakly left-lateralised or, in the case of Word Comprehension, slightly right-lateralised. The online measures were only weakly correlated, if at all, with fTCD measures. Most of the fTCD measures had split-half reliabilities of at least .7, and showed a distinctive pattern of intercorrelation, supporting a modified two-factor model in which Phonological Decision (generation) and Sentence Decision (reception) loaded on both factors. The same factor structure fitted data from left- and right-handers, but mean scores on the two factors were lower (less left-lateralised) in left-handers. There are at least two factors influencing language lateralization in individuals, but they do not correspond neatly to language generation and comprehension. Future fMRI studies could help clarify how far they reflect activity in specific brain regions.

The Phonological Mapping Negativity: History, Inconsistency, and Future Direction

Social cognition has a broad theoretical definition, which includes the ability to mentalise, i.e., recognise and infer mental states to explain and predict another’s behaviour. There is growing recognition of the clinical, diagnostic, and prognostic value of assessing a person’s ability to perform social cognitive tasks, particularly aspects of theory of mind, such as mentalising. One such measure of mentalising is the ‘Reading the Mind in the Eyes’ test (RMET). This systematic review and meta-analysis consider performance on the RMET, applied to people with neurodegenerative conditions in matched control studies, since its publication in 2001. Overall, this review includes 22 papers with data from N = 800 participants with neurodegenerative conditions: Alzheimer’s disease, n = 31; Parkinson’s disease, n = 221; Lewy body dementia, n = 33; motor neuron disease, n = 218; Huntington’s disease n = 80; multiple sclerosis, n = 217; and N = 601 matched typical controls. Our meta-analyses show that deficits in mentalising, as measured by the RMET, are consistently reported across neurodegenerative conditions, with participants in both early and late disease stages being affected. Social cognition is an emerging field of cognitive neuroscience requiring specific and sensitive measurement across each subdomain. Adult-based meta-normative data feature, for which future groups or individuals could be compared against, and hypotheses relating to the source of these mentalising deficits are further discussed. This review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020182874).

For skilled readers, idiomatic language confers faster access to overall meaning compared with non-idiomatic language, with a processing advantage for figurative over literal interpretation. However, currently very little research exists to elucidate whether atypical readers—such as those with developmental dyslexia—show such a processing advantage for figurative interpretations of idioms, or whether their reading impairment implicates subtle differences in semantic access. We wanted to know whether an initial figurative interpretation of similes, for both typical and dyslexic readers, is dependent on familiarity. Here, we tracked typical and dyslexic readers’ eye movements as they read sentences containing similes (e.g., as cold as ice), orthogonally manipulated for novelty (e.g., familiar: as cold as ice, novel: as cold as snow) and figurativeness (e.g., literal: as cold as ice [low temperature], figurative: as cold as ice [emotionally distant]), with figurativeness being defined by the sentence context. Both participant groups exhibited a processing advantage for familiar and figurative similes over novel and literal similes. However, compared with typical readers, participants with dyslexia had greater difficulty processing similes both when they were unfamiliar and when the context biased the simile meaning towards a literal rather than a figurative interpretation. Our findings suggest a semantic processing anomaly in dyslexic readers, which we discuss in light of recent literature on sentence-level semantic processing.