Extended Data Fig. 10: Comparison of the individual activation maps for the Native-language > Degraded-language contrast and the Native-language > Unfamiliar-language contrast in four sample participants.
From: An investigation across 45 languages and 12 language families reveals a universal language network
The activation landscapes are broadly similar: across the full set of 86 participants, the average Fisher-transformed voxel-wise spatial correlation within the union of the language parcels between the maps for the two contrasts is r = 0.66 (SD = 0.40). (Note that this correlation is lower than the correlation between the Native-language > Degraded-language contrast and the Sentences > Nonwords contrast in English (see Extended Data Fig. 1). This difference may be due to the greater variability in the participants’ responses to an unfamiliar language.) Furthermore, across the language fROIs, the magnitudes of the Native-language > Degraded-language and the Native-language > Unfamiliar-language effects are similar (mean = 1.02, SD(across languages)=0.41 vs. mean=1.07, SD = 0.37, respectively; t(44)=1.15, p = 0.26).
