Patients with focal lesions to the left inferior frontal gyrus (LIFG; BA 44/45) exhibit difficulty with language production and comprehension tasks, although the nature of their impairments has been somewhat difficult to characterize. No reported cases suggest that these patients are Broca's aphasics in the classic agrammatic sense. Recent case studies, however, do reveal a consistent pattern of deficit regarding their general cognitive processes: they are reliably impaired on tasks in which conflicting representations must be resolved by implementing top-down cognitive control (e.g., Stroop; memory tasks involving proactive interference). In the present study, we ask whether the language production and comprehension impairments displayed by a patient with circumscribed LIFG damage can best be understood within a general conflict resolution deficit account. We focus on one patient in particular--patient I.G.--and discuss the implications for language processing abilities as a consequence of a general cognitive control disorder. We compared I.G. and other frontal patients to age-matched control participants across four experiments. Experiment 1 tested participants' general conflict resolution abilities within a modified working memory paradigm in an attempt to replicate prior case study findings. We then tested language production abilities on tasks of picture naming (Experiment 2) and verbal fluency (Experiment 3), tasks that generated conflict at the semantic and/or conceptual levels. Experiment 4 tested participants' sentence processing and comprehension abilities using both online (eye movement) and offline measures. In this task, participants carried out spoken instructions containing a syntactic ambiguity, in which early interpretation commitments had to be overridden in order to recover an alternative, intended analysis of sentence meaning. Comparisons of I.G.'s performance with frontal and healthy control participants supported the following claim: I.G. suffers from a general conflict resolution impairment, which affects his ability to produce and comprehend language under specific conditions--namely, when semantic, conceptual, and/or syntactic representations compete and must be resolved.

How do general-purpose cognitive abilities affect language processing and comprehension? Recent research emphasises a role for cognitive control—also called executive function (EF)—when individuals must override early parsing decisions as new evidence conflicts with their developing interpretation. We tested if training on non-syntactic EF tasks improves readers' ability to recover from misanalysis during language processing. Participants completed pre/post-reading assessments containing temporarily ambiguous sentences susceptible to misinterpretation. Performance increases on a training task targeting conflict-resolution processes (n-back with “lures”) predicted improvements in garden-path recovery. N-back responders—those demonstrating reliable training gains—significantly increased their comprehension accuracy across assessments. Their posttest eye-movement patterns also revealed significantly improved real-time revision following entry into disambiguating sentence regions where cognitive control is hypothesised to engage. Untrained participants and n-back non-responders showed no performance changes. The results provide insight into how nonlinguistic functions contribute to parsing and interpretation and suggest that certain language skills are amenable to improvement via domain-general EF training.

Recent psycholinguistics research suggests that the executive function (EF) skill known as conflict resolution – the ability to adjust behavior in the service of resolving among incompatible representations – is important for several language processing tasks such as lexical and syntactic ambiguity resolution, verbal fluency, and common-ground assessment. Here, we discuss work showing that various EF skills can be enhanced through consistent practice with working-memory tasks that tap these EFs, and, moreover, that improvements on the training tasks transfer across domains to novel tasks that may rely on shared underlying EFs. These findings have implications for language processing and could launch new research exploring if EF training, within a “process-specific” framework, could be used as a remediation tool for improving general language use. Indeed, work in our lab demonstrates that EF training that increases conflict-resolution processes has selective benefits on an untrained sentence-processing task requiring syntactic ambiguity resolution, which relies on shared conflict-resolution functions. Given claims that conflict-resolution abilities contribute to a range of linguistic skills, EF training targeting this process could theoretically yield wider performance gains beyond garden-path recovery. We offer some hypotheses on the potential benefits of EF training as a component of interventions to mitigate general difficulties in language processing. However, there are caveats to consider as well, which we also address.

Regions within the left inferior frontal gyrus (LIFG) have simultaneously been implicated in syntactic processing and cognitive control. Accounts attempting to unify LIFG's function hypothesize that, during comprehension, cognitive control resolves conflict between incompatible representations of sentence meaning. Some studies demonstrate co-localized activity within LIFG for syntactic and non-syntactic conflict resolution, suggesting domain-generality, but others show non-overlapping activity, suggesting domain-specific cognitive control and/or regions that respond uniquely to syntax. We propose however that examining exclusive activation sites for certain contrasts creates a false dichotomy: both domain-general and domain-specific neural machinery must coordinate to facilitate conflict resolution across domains. Here, subjects completed four diverse tasks involving conflict -one syntactic, three non-syntactic- while undergoing fMRI. Though LIFG consistently activated within individuals during conflict processing, functional connectivity analyses revealed task-specific coordination with distinct brain networks. Thus, LIFG may function as a conflict-resolution "hub" that cooperates with specialized neural systems according to information content.

Incremental language processing means that listeners confront temporary ambiguity about how to structure the input, which can generate misinterpretations. In four “visual-world” experiments, we tested whether engaging cognitive control – which detects and resolves conflict – assists revision during comprehension. We recorded listeners’ eye-movements and actions while following instructions that were ripe for misanalysis. In Experiments 1 and 3, sentences followed trials from a nonverbal conflict task that manipulated cognitive-control engagement, to test its impact on the ability to revise. To isolate conflict-driven effects of cognitive-control on comprehension, we manipulated attention in a non-conflict task in Experiments 2 and 4. We observed fewer comprehension errors, and earlier revision, when cognitive control (more than attention) was elicited on an immediately preceding trial. These results extend previous correlations between cognitive control and language processing by revealing the influence of domain-general cognitive-control engagement on the temporal unfolding of error-revision processes during language comprehension.