Talk:Broca's area

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Anatomy (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article has been classified as relating to neuroanatomy.


Is this the same thing as the motor speech area? If so, we should probably include it, simply because eponyms are no longer in vogue. --Mauvila 11:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with that term, but some quick googling implies they might be the same. On the other hand, 'motor speech area' is a misleading term, because Broca's area doesn't have much to do with motor control. Masily box 14:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

"Yes... ah... Monday... er... Dad and Peter H... (his own name), and Dad.... er... hospital... and ah... Wednesday... Wednesday, nine o'clock... and oh... Thursday... ten o'clock, ah doctors... two... an' doctors... and er... teeth... yah."

Peter has some type of an appointment with a dentist and someone has to go to a doctor or came from or is involved with.. yep :) --Cyberman 20:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC) Scientists say Broca's Area when damaged is serve to the way we talk. Broca disected 8 brains in total of people (already dead) who couldn't speak. He found that their brains were all damaged servely in the same area. Therefore this is why we call that area today Broca's area

Too many run on sentences, when your introducing a new cocept it doesnt help if you can't remember what the beginning of the sentence was talking about.-Rooktje

This is coming long after intial dialogue...but here goes. Broca's is part of what one MIGHT refer to as a "motor speech area". The fact is that Broca's area is not a rigid area in every brain, but it is located mainly in what is called the motor association cortex of the brain. This area is sort of like the "mixer" that turns the butter an sugar into cookie dough for lack of a better metaphor. It is thought that the association areas of the brain are where memories for different things are stored. Wernicke orignially posited that Broca's area governed "motor memories" and this seems to be the case. Damage to Broca's shows the following symptoms in varying intensities and combinations:Non-fluent speech, slow,halting speech, loss of ability to "find" certain words, difficulty pronouncing words and loss of prosody (agrammatism, anomia, articulation difficulty). Athough the right hemisphere is ultimately responsible for prosody, for some reason Broca's (on the left) seems to be connected as well. True apraxia would be damage to the ventral primary motor cortex. Broca's aphasia is not a dysfuntcion of the actual motor connections as they pertain to the mechanical operation of the lips, tongue, etc; but to part of the motor association cortex that stores motor memories and allows their retrieval. It is in an area that works to integrate all the different aspects of the brain's motor systems.Cherokeechild 00:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)cherokeechild

Sorry for the addition, but I think there may be a mistake in the last paragraph. As I recall, functional studies by Brown (2005) found that people who stutter have GREATER/increased activation of neuronal pathways in Broca's area...not less. You might check data as reported by Neil Carlson, Physiology of Behavior (2007), I think.Cherokeechild 00:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)cherokeechild

""Yes... ah... Monday... er... Dad and Peter H... ......." My Psych textbook quotes this differently. Basically, alot of the er's and ah's are gone... and he says 'Dad and Dick'... 06:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Broca's is not simply an organ for syntax[edit]

Have removed the universal grammar section. Very few people (maybe Grodzinsky, but I can't think of any others of note) now believe that this area is dedicated to parsing syntax, which is what this section would lead you to conclude. This part of the IFG participates in hundreds of cognitive functions, not all of them language related. As far as language itself is concerned, fMRI investigations have shown an involvement in semantic processing, even at the single word level - i.e. in the absence of any syntactic processing demand. Crudely put, current opinion seems to be that the anterior part (BA45) is involved in (probably multimodal) semantic processing, wheras the posterior part (BA44) appears to play a role in phonological processing. Even more crudely put, the front bit of Broca's probably helps us deal with the meaning of language, the back bit helps us deal with the sounds of language Terry Toweling 22:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Broca's area is equivalent to Motor Speech center.. should add the link. -- econner 29 November 2007

I don't believe you can pinpoint Broca's area to any particular language feature. Yes, it is primarily motor speech - but, it probably is involved in other functions at a level we don't completely understand. --Anthropos65 (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not "equivalent to Motor Speech center." Actually, most of the recent work is leaning towards calling BA44 and BA45 a working memory area, and the anterior temporal lobe (ATL) the real locus of most syntactic operations; you just see activation in Broca's area as well because the complex syntactic operations (gap-filling, etc.) require you to keep a moved constituent active in your working memory for a while. To tell you the truth, I'm a bit surprised that there's no mention of working memory in this article, and maybe I will try to add some later (Dronkers et al 2000 and Friederici 2002 have some good stuff on that; sorry, don't have the full citation handy).
Also, remember to take this all with a grain of salt; Broca's Area is not just one homogenous blob, but is a region which has plenty of heterogeneity in it and has different parts that do different things. I will be more familiar with the literature on that within about a month or so. Politizer talk/contribs 19:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It could have been present already in the common ancestor of humans and chimps[edit]

Quoting from Science Daily:

In the new study, the researchers non-invasively scanned the brains of three chimpanzees as they gestured and called to a person in request for food that was out of their reach. Those chimps showed activation in the brain region corresponding to Broca's area and in other areas involved in complex motor planning and action in humans, the researchers found. - Science Daily, February 28, "Chimps May Have A 'Language-ready' Brain"

--Extremophile (talk) 13:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


Might be useful, might not be:

Politizer talk/contribs 19:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Areas for improvement[edit]

I've decided to grace this article with my presence sometime in the near future. In the meantime, for anyone reading along, here are some of the main issues that I think need to addressed (these are things that I will be addressing in my edits to come, but I'm listing them here just in case anyone wants to get started early, or in case anyone disagrees).

  • The section Case study is totally unjustified, it gives undue weight to a single study. Will get rid of it and integrate that reference into other areas.
  • Aphasia section needs rewritten; current version focuses mostly on comparison with other aphasias, which belongs (and is already present in) the main Aphasia article. Section should say more about Broca's aphasia and doesn't need the table (which is simply copied from here anyway).
  • Broca's area revisited is also just about one study (Dronkers et al, 2007) and should be rewritten as a summary of relevant literature, not just the one study. Another relevant paper is Hagoort, Peter (2005). "On Broca, brain, and binding: a new framework". TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences. 9 (9). 
  • Stuff I mentioned above about how there needs to be more coverage of the literature that suggests Broca's area is a workspace of working memory, rather than a syntax-specific or even language-specific area. Relevant papers include:
    • Stowe, Laurie A.; Cees A.J. Broere, Anne M.J. Paans, Albertus A. Wijers, Gijsbertus Mulder, Wim Vaalburg, Frans Zwarts (1998). "Localizing components of a complex task: Sentence processing and working memory". NeuroReport. 9 (13): 2995–2999.  Cite uses deprecated parameter |coauthors= (help)
    • Friederici, Angela D (2002). "Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing". TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences. 6: 78–84. 
    • And, of course, for a counterpoint: Grodzinsky, Yosef; Andrea Santi (2008). "The battle for Broca's region". TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences. 12 (12): 474–80. doi:10.1016.j.tics.2008.09.001 Check |doi= value (help).  Cite uses deprecated parameter |coauthors= (help) (and some earlier papers cited in this one)

Politizer talk/contribs 19:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll admit I'm guilty of not reading this talk page before making some of my edits. I have to agree with a lot of what this editor says, although the presence of information on aphasia (especially Broca's aphasia) is not contraindicated on this page just because this information appears elsewhere in the encyclopedia. I do agree that refining the section to more specifically elucidate the nature of Broca's aphasia is probably warranted, but I do not think it is possible to do so without mentioning and comparing the other forms of aphasia to Broca's aphasia. As an aside, the section on the origin of language probably should be truncated; I made a number of additions to this area which were (in my mind justifiably) removed, and a link to the main article on the origins of language along with a very short stub describing, briefly, the relevence of Broca's area to the discussion would suffice in my opinion. Spiral5800 (talk) 06:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)!

nu mata sa wayay???????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit reverted[edit]

I have undone this addition for the following reasons:

  • It's not clear what it means. "This area is also crucially involved in the recognition of recursive rules, the only one admitted in human languages"---what does "the only one" refer to? And what is the nature of the region's involvement?
  • Citing a full book without giving page or chapter numbers is not really helpful, as it would be difficult to find the relevant passage to verify this.
  • If this is a claim based on one experiment, then it doesn't belong in the article anyway; for a topic like this, we really should be limiting ourselves to sources more like review articles, where the claims are widely replicated and are agreed upon. Mentioning every neuroscience result that implicates Broca's area (or any region) in anything would quickly get beyond the scope of the article.

Also, for what it's worth, the link provided was dead. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)