Humans are the only known species where much of knowledge learning happens symbolically through language, in addition to information received directly from the senses. For example, humans can learn about the color of some rose flowers from the popular expression “roses are red” without needing to see any red roses – allowing them to accumulate knowledge beyond the constraints of their own senses.

Recent work suggests that a region of the brain known as the dorsal anterior temporal lobe represents knowledge acquired from language instead of sensory experiences. However, these studies were based on volunteers deprived of sensory experiences rather than those with reduced language exposure. Therefore, it was not clear whether this brain structure represents knowledge derived specifically from language and the importance of language in shaping non-sensory knowledge.

To address this question, Wang et al. studied the brain activity of deaf adult volunteers in a word meaning judgement task. Volunteers were either born deaf or lost their hearing as toddlers, and all primarily used Chinese Sign Language for communication. One group of volunteers had been exposed to sign language from birth, giving them similar exposure to language as hearing individuals. The other group had less exposure to language in their early years and only learned sign language later in childhood.

The task included 90 written words that were familiar to the volunteers. They included a mixture of object words – related to material objects – such as “shoulder” and “hammer” and abstract words – which are not linked to physical objects – such as “cause” and “violence”. The volunteers were shown each word in turn and asked to think about the word’s meaning. Brain scans revealed that the left dorsal anterior temporal lobes of the volunteers with reduced early language exposure were less sensitive to the meaning of the words compared with those of the other volunteers.

The findings demonstrate that the dorsal anterior temporal lobe specifically supports meaning derived from a person’s experience of language as opposed to sensory experience, providing a new angle to understand the mechanism of knowledge representations. Increased understanding of how language supports knowledge will help to uncover the human-specific ways of representing and creating knowledge in the brain.

Humans are believed to be the only species in the animal kingdom where knowledge learning can be achieved symbolically, mostly through language (‘roses are red’), in addition to sensory channels (visually perceiving roses in color red) (Gelman and Roberts, 2017; Perszyk and Waxman, 2018). A common view shared by the modern neurocognitive theories of semantics is that semantic knowledge, even those acquired through language, is ultimately grounded in (nonlinguistic) sensory/motor experiences, encoded in the distributed brain areas encompassing high-level sensorimotor areas, and potential hub regions that bind such sensory-derived representations (Barsalou, 2016; Binder et al., 2009; Fernandino et al., 2022; Ralph et al., 2017; Martin, 2016). However, language experiences may contribute to semantic development beyond sensory experiences by facilitating or modulating categorizations by the nature of labeling (i.e. words) to the sensory experiences, and/or by constructing semantic relations based on various types of word relations (Gelman and Roberts, 2017; Perszyk and Waxman, 2018; Unger and Fisher, 2021). Are such cognitive contributions manifested by modulating the neural representations of the sensory-derived semantic spaces, or by also formulating neural representations that specialize in representing knowledge derived from language experience (i.e. not nonlinguistic sensory experience)?

Neural representations of fully nonsensory, language-derived knowledge have only recently been inferred based on studies with sensory-deprived individuals (Bottini et al., 2020; Striem-Amit et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2020, see Bi, 2021, for a review). Congenitally blind individuals, who cannot acquire visual-specific knowledge (e.g. color) through sensory experiences, can nevertheless acquire semantic structures about such knowledge behaviorally similar to those in the sighted, presumably derived from language. Such nonsensory semantic structures in the blind (and also sighted) are represented in the dorsal anterior temporal lobe (dATL), with sighted individuals additionally representing the highly similar knowledge structure (presumably derived from sensory experience) in the visual cortex (Wang et al., 2020). This dATL cluster is distinct from the central ‘amodal’ semantic hub proposed to bind together multiple sensory attributes, which is located in the more ventral-medial territory of the ATL (Ralph et al., 2017; Patterson et al., 2007; see discussions in Striem-Amit et al., 2018). The left dATL is also more strongly activated by abstract than concrete words in typically developed individuals (Binder et al., 2009; Bucur and Papagno, 2021; Wang et al., 2010; Wang et al., 2019). It was thus proposed that this area represents knowledge derived from language, in addition to those from sensory experiences in various perceptual (association) regions (Bi, 2021). These lines of evidence, while highly suggestive, are based on manipulating sensory experience by examining individuals deprived of a sensory modality or by contrasting concepts with rich sensory experiences versus those without, rather than the positive manipulation of language experience. Thus, the positive evidence for the necessity of language experiences for the neural semantic representation here is still lacking.

Here, we address this issue in a special human model that varies in early language exposure: individuals who were born profoundly deaf in hearing families and had limited natural language exposure (speech or sign) during early childhood (Goldin-Meadow and Feldman, 1977; Mayberry et al., 2002). These individuals often acquired their first language (sign language) around school age, which is much later than the age of first language (L1) acquisition in typically developed children or in native deaf signers who were born in deaf families and acquired sign language from birth. Previous research has shown that such early language exposure limitation led to long-lasting effects on various aspects of language processing. Behaviorally, these delayed deaf signers, even during adulthood with many years of sign language usage, have lower proficiency in phonological, morphological, and syntactic processing of sign language (Bogliotti et al., 2020; Caselli et al., 2021; Cheng and Mayberry, 2021; Lieberman et al., 2015; Mayberry et al., 2002; Mayberry and Fischer, 1989; Newport, 1990; Tomaszewski et al., 2022). Neurally, brain functional imaging studies have reported decreased activation magnitude in the left inferior frontal and posterior temporal regions in tasks of sign sentence judgments (Mayberry et al., 2011; Richardson et al., 2020; Twomey et al., 2020). Anatomical alterations in regions typically recruited in language tasks – reduced cortical volume in the left inferior frontal region, reduced cortical thickness in the left posterior middle temporal region, and reduced fractional anisotropy values in the left arcuate fasciculus – were also reported in signers with delayed L1 acquisition (Cheng et al., 2023; Cheng et al., 2019).

Despite these documented effects of delayed L1 acquisition on phonology, morphology, and syntax (Curtiss, 1977; Lenneberg, 1967; Lillo-Martin and Henner, 2021; Mayberry and Kluender, 2018), studies have reported little effects on semantic behaviors, including semantic interference effects in the picture-sign paradigm (Baus et al., 2008), scalar implicature (Davidson and Mayberry, 2015), or accuracy scores of several written word semantic tasks (e.g. synonym judgment) (Choubsaz and Gheitury, 2017). However, as shown by the color knowledge in the congenitally blind studies (e.g. Wang et al., 2020), similar semantic behaviors may arise from (partly) different neural representations. Semantic processing is supported by a multifaceted cognitive system and a complex neural network entailing distributed brain regions (Bi, 2021; Binder and Desai, 2011; Ralph et al., 2017; Martin, 2016), and thus focal neural changes may not necessarily lead to semantic behavioral changes. Neurally, neurophysiological signatures assumed to reflect semantic processes showed incongruent effects across studies: N400 effects in the semantic violation of written sentences were not affected (Skotara et al., 2012), whereas M400 in the picture-sign matching task showed atypical activation patterns (reduced recruitment of the left fronto-temporal regions and involvement of the right parietal and occipital regions) (Ferjan Ramirez et al., 2016; Ferjan Ramirez et al., 2014; Mayberry et al., 2018). It remains to be tested whether and where delayed L1 acquisition affects how semantics are neurally represented, using imaging techniques with higher spatial resolutions.

In this study, by a rare opportunity of manipulation of early language exposure offered by nature, we aim to test the neural system representing the language-derived semantic representations, beyond the sensory-derived semantic representations (Bi, 2021; Wang et al., 2020). With fMRI experiments on semantic processing of familiar words, we compared the neural semantic structures between congenitally deaf signers with delayed sign language acquisition (delayed deaf signers) and congenitally deaf signers with native sign language acquisition (native deaf signers), that is, two groups that are matched on their nonlinguistic sensory experiences but varied in early language experience. Significant group differences would provide positive evidence for the role of language experience in the formation of the identified neural semantic structures.

By comparing fMRI BOLD responses to the word semantic structures between native and delayed early deaf signers, we aimed to examine how early-life language exposure affects the semantic neural representations. Our results demonstrated that semantic information in the left dATL was significantly reduced in delayed signers compared with native signers in both multivariate (representation of rich semantic space) and univariate (preference to abstract/nonobject words) analyses. That is, early-life language acquisition – critical to language system neurodevelopment – is necessary for the left dATL to exhibit the typical semantic organization in adulthood. These results provide the first positive evidence for the effect of language experience on driving the semantic functional development of a particular brain region.

Two types of specificity are to be clarified – anatomical specificity and information specificity. First, is this group effect specific to the dATL, relative to other brain regions? We do not have evidence for such a strong region specificity. We did not observe a significant group-by-ROI interaction in either the RSA or the univariate analyses. That is, the group differences were not significantly stronger in the dATL than in the other semantic regions being analyzed (IFG and pMTG). We are thus not claiming that the dATL is the only region that derives semantic representation from language experience, but choose to focus the following discussion on this region because of the robust positive effects here. Second, is the dATL semantic representation specifically derived from language experience and not other (nonlinguistic) sensory experiences? The manipulation of the current study – the two groups of deaf signers – varies on the language exposure while matching on the sensory experiences (see below), and thus did not test the presence or absence of sensory-derived semantic representations. Inferences could be drawn in combination with the previous studies that focused on the manipulation of sensory experiences by studying visual knowledge in congenitally blind subjects. There, it was reported that the blind and sighted had comparable semantic information encoding in the RSA (Wang et al., 2020). In terms of univariate effects (abstractness or color concept adaptation), deprivation of sensory experiences did not reduce, but actually tended to enhance the effects here (Bottini et al., 2020; Striem-Amit et al., 2018). That is, evidence from congenitally blind studies does not support the additional sensory-derived semantic encoding here. While drawing negative conclusions is always difficult, we reason that it is parsimonious, based on available data, to propose that the dATL’s contribution to semantic encoding is specific to language, and not sensory-derived representations.

What kind of variables best account for the observed group differences in the dATL? The two deaf groups were matched on sensory experiences (both similarly profoundly deaf), a wide range of nonlinguistic environmental variables including the socioeconomic status (except for parents’ education backgrounds, which were better for the delayed signer group), the length and level of formal education, through which largely comparable sign language and word reading skills were achieved. The salient difference was the early-life language experience (before 6.9 years of age – the mean age of acquisition in our delayed signer group). Notably, deaf children with limited access to natural language often spontaneously develop homesign systems, which share some aspects with natural language (Goldin-Meadow, 2003). For instance, they could use homesigns to produce generic utterances in a similar manner to typically developed children (Goldin-Meadow et al., 2005). Notably, routine nation-wide neonate hearing screening in China did not start until 2009, years after the early childhood of our participants (born before 2000), and some hearing parents may nonetheless try to give deaf children additional aids of exposure to signs (via preschool special education programs) or speech (via hearing aids). Critically, our positive results of the robust group differences in the dATL suggest that early homesign/aid measures and later formal education for sign and written language experiences are insufficient for typical dATL neurodevelopment; the full-fledged language experience during early infancy and childhood (before school age) plays a necessary role in this process. A further variable to consider is that a lack of early language exposure may lead to alterations beyond the language system, affecting non-language cognitive domains such as working memory or theory of mind in children (Marshall et al., 2015; Richardson et al., 2020). While we cannot rule out the effects of these potential intermediate cognitive processes, the positive evidence of these variables in dATL functionality is lacking. The most direct manipulation and parsimonious account for the dATL effects is language-related.

The effects of language experience in shaping the semantic representation in the dATL observed here are corroborated by several previous lines of indirect evidence for the relevance of language in its functionality. It shows a functional preference for abstract words, which are less salient in sensory attributes than concrete words and are assumed to entail more language processes such as context diversity (e.g. Binder et al., 2009; Bucur and Papagno, 2021; Wang et al., 2010). In congenitally blind individuals, it encodes visual knowledge such as color and the activity strength is negatively modulated by perceptibility (Bottini et al., 2020; Striem-Amit et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2020). It is sensitive to semantic composition, such as in two-word phrases or sentences (Pallier et al., 2011; Pylkkänen, 2019). This region is functionally and structurally connected with other language-sensitive regions (Fan et al., 2014; Friederici et al., 2017; Ralph et al., 2017; Pascual et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2019). Finally, a recent neurodevelopmental study shows that the early-life resting-state functional connectivity patterns of the left temporal pole significantly predict performances in tasks entailing semantic processes, not in tasks of phonological skills or rapid automatized naming, at about 6.5 years of age (Yu et al., 2021). These lines of findings are often correlational evidence for the language effect on their own. Together with the positive evidence of early language experience in developing typical semantic representation in the dATL reported here, the parsimonious proposal accounting for them together would be that the dATL represents knowledge derived from language (e.g. from higher-order word relations). Without early language exposure, the semantic structure representation and the abstractness preference here are reduced.

Together, this package of findings extends beyond the majority of the neurocognitive semantic theories, which mainly focus on the representing, binding, and controlling of knowledge derived from nonlinguistic multisensory experiences (Binder, 2016; Ralph et al., 2017; Martin, 2016; but see Mahon and Caramazza, 2008). The recently developed dual-neural-coding framework for semantic knowledge (Bi, 2021), which explicitly proposes that the human brain has developed regions (the dATL) for language-derived semantic representations, in addition to the sensory-derived knowledge representations, naturally accommodates these observations. Language, as a symbolic system, allows us to convey and manipulate meanings free from sensorimotor experiences and plays a key role in knowledge transmission and accumulation across individuals and generations (Gelman and Roberts, 2017). The existence of the language-derived knowledge neural system may lay the foundation for the efficient storage and manipulation of semantic knowledge, particularly abstract knowledge without tangible and consistent sensorimotor referents (Bi, 2021).

The current results also have implications for the role of early language exposure in neurodevelopment more generally. Previous studies have reported that delayed L1 acquisition associates with reduced cortical volume in the left inferior frontal region, reduced cortical thickness in the left posterior middle temporal region, and the reduced fractional anisotropy values in the left arcuate fasciculus that structurally connects the two regions, and not ATL or its related white matter tracts (Cheng et al., 2023; Cheng et al., 2019). Our findings of semantic functional alterations in the dATL are thus not easily attributable to broad anatomical changes associated with late L1 acquisition. Notably, different from phonological and syntactic processes, where both visible behavioral underdevelopment (e.g. Caselli et al., 2021; Cheng and Mayberry, 2021; Mayberry et al., 2002) and brain functional changes (Mayberry et al., 2011; Richardson et al., 2020; Twomey et al., 2020) were observed, for semantics we only observed brain functional changes in the dATL but no visible behavioral effects. Consistent with the literature where deaf delayed signers did not show differences to controls in semantic interference effects in the picture-sign paradigm (Baus et al., 2008), scalar implicature (Davidson and Mayberry, 2015), or N400 measures (Skotara et al., 2012), we did not observe visible differences in terms of semantic distance structures (Figure 1a) or reaction time of lexical decision and word-triplet semantic judgment (Figure 1—figure supplement 1). As reasoned in the Introduction, this seeming neuro-behavior discrepancy might be related to the multifaceted, distributed nature of the cognitive and neural basis of semantics more broadly. The general semantic behavioral tasks we employed could be achieved with representations derived from multiple types of experiences, supported by highly distributed neural systems (e.g. Bi, 2021; Binder and Desai, 2011; Ralph et al., 2017; Martin, 2016), including those not affected by delayed L1 acquisition in regions beyond the dATL. This finding invites future studies to specify the exact developmental mechanisms in the left dATL (Fu et al., 2023; Unger and Fisher, 2021) and to uncover semantic behavioral consequences related to the functionality of this area.

To conclude, by manipulation of early language experience by nature we were able to positively identify a human brain region – dATL – robustly supporting word meanings derived from language experience, in contrast to those grounding nonlinguistic, sensory experiences. These findings highlight the role of language in forming specific neural semantic representations in the human brain, and raise new questions about the ontogenetic mechanisms of this intriguing neural structure.

Source data files have been provided for Table 1 and all the figures. Additional behavioral and neural data have been made available on OSF at the link https://osf.io/wz6q9/. The whole-brain unthresholded statistical maps have also been made available on NeuroVault at the link https://neurovault.org/collections/13705/. Deidentified Nifti files are not shared openly because of ethics constraints, but are available from the corresponding authors upon reasonable request.

1. 1. Wang X

   (2023) Open Science Framework

   Early language exposure affects neural mechanisms of semantic representations.

   https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/WZ6Q9
2. 1. Wang X

   (2023) NeuroVault

   ID 13705. Early language exposure affects neural mechanisms of semantic representations.

   https://neurovault.org/collections/13705/

1. 1. Adler NE
   2. Epel ES
   3. Castellazzo G
   4. Ickovics JR

   (2000) Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: preliminary data in healthy white women

   Health Psychology 19:586–592.

   https://doi.org/10.1037//0278-6133.19.6.586

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Barsalou LW

   (2016) On staying grounded and avoiding quixotic dead ends

   Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 23:1122–1142.

   https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1028-3

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Baus C
   2. Gutiérrez-Sigut E
   3. Quer J
   4. Carreiras M

   (2008) Lexical access in Catalan signed language (Lsc) production

   Cognition 108:856–865.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.05.012

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Bi Y

   (2021) Dual coding of knowledge in the human brain

   Trends in Cognitive Sciences 25:883–895.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2021.07.006

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Binder JR
   2. Desai RH
   3. Graves WW
   4. Conant LL

   (2009) Where is the semantic system? A critical review and meta-analysis of 120 functional neuroimaging studies

   Cerebral Cortex 19:2767–2796.

   https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhp055

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Binder JR
   2. Desai RH

   (2011) The neurobiology of semantic memory

   Trends in Cognitive Sciences 15:527–536.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2011.10.001

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Binder JR

   (2016) In defense of abstract conceptual representations

   Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 23:1096–1108.

   https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0909-1

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Binder JR
   2. Conant LL
   3. Humphries CJ
   4. Fernandino L
   5. Simons SB
   6. Aguilar M
   7. Desai RH

   (2016) Toward a brain-based componential semantic representation

   Cognitive Neuropsychology 33:130–174.

   https://doi.org/10.1080/02643294.2016.1147426

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Bogliotti C
   2. Aksen H
   3. Isel F

   (2020) Language experience in LSF development: behavioral evidence from a sentence repetition task

   PLOS ONE 15:e0236729.

   https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236729

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Bottini R
    2. Ferraro S
    3. Nigri A
    4. Cuccarini V
    5. Bruzzone MG
    6. Collignon O

    (2020) Brain regions involved in conceptual retrieval in sighted and blind people

    Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 32:1009–1025.

    https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_01538

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Bucur M
    2. Papagno C

    (2021) An ale meta-analytical review of the neural correlates of Abstract and concrete words

    Scientific Reports 11:15727.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-94506-9

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Caselli NK
    2. Emmorey K
    3. Cohen-Goldberg AM

    (2021) The signed mental lexicon: effects of phonological neighborhood density, iconicity, and childhood language experience

    Journal of Memory and Language 121:104282.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2021.104282

    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Catricalà E
    2. Della Rosa PA
    3. Plebani V
    4. Vigliocco G
    5. Cappa SF

    (2014) Abstract and concrete categories? Evidences from neurodegenerative diseases

    Neuropsychologia 64:271–281.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.09.041

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Cheng Q
    2. Roth A
    3. Halgren E
    4. Mayberry RI

    (2019) Effects of early language deprivation on brain connectivity: language pathways in deaf native and late first-language learners of American sign language

    Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 13:320.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2019.00320

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Cheng Q
    2. Mayberry RI

    (2021) When event knowledge overrides word order in sentence comprehension: learning a first language after childhood

    Developmental Science 24:e13073.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.13073

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Cheng Q
    2. Roth A
    3. Halgren E
    4. Klein D
    5. Chen JK
    6. Mayberry RI

    (2023) Restricted language access during childhood affects adult brain structure in selective language regions

    PNAS 120:e2215423120.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2215423120

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Choubsaz Y
    2. Gheitury A

    (2017) Is semantics affected by missing a critical period? Evidence from the Persian deaf

    Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 46:77–88.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-016-9421-7

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Cohen MA
    2. Dilks DD
    3. Koldewyn K
    4. Weigelt S
    5. Feather J
    6. Kell AJ
    7. Keil B
    8. Fischl B
    9. Zöllei L
    10. Wald L
    11. Saxe R
    12. Kanwisher N

    (2019) Representational similarity precedes category selectivity in the developing ventral visual pathway

    NeuroImage 197:565–574.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.05.010

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Conca F
    2. Borsa VM
    3. Cappa SF
    4. Catricalà E

    (2021) The multidimensionality of abstract concepts: a systematic review

    Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 127:474–491.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.05.004

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
20. Book

    1. Curtiss S

    (1977)

    Genie: A Psycholinguistic Study of A Modern-Day Wild Child

    New York: Academic press.

    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Davidson K
    2. Mayberry RI

    (2015) Do adults show an effect of delayed first language acquisition when calculating scalar implicatures?

    Language Acquisition 22:329–354.

    https://doi.org/10.1080/10489223.2014.962140

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Fan L
    2. Wang J
    3. Zhang Y
    4. Han W
    5. Yu C
    6. Jiang T

    (2014) Connectivity-based parcellation of the human temporal pole using diffusion tensor imaging

    Cerebral Cortex 24:3365–3378.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bht196

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Fedorenko E
    2. Hsieh PJ
    3. Nieto-Castañón A
    4. Whitfield-Gabrieli S
    5. Kanwisher N

    (2010) New method for fMRI investigations of language: defining rois functionally in individual subjects

    Journal of Neurophysiology 104:1177–1194.

    https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00032.2010

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Ferjan Ramirez N
    2. Leonard MK
    3. Torres C
    4. Hatrak M
    5. Halgren E
    6. Mayberry RI

    (2014) Neural language processing in adolescent first-language learners

    Cerebral Cortex 24:2772–2783.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bht137

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Ferjan Ramirez N
    2. Leonard MK
    3. Davenport TS
    4. Torres C
    5. Halgren E
    6. Mayberry RI

    (2016) Neural language processing in adolescent first-language learners: longitudinal case studies in American sign language

    Cerebral Cortex 26:1015–1026.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhu273

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Fernandino L
    2. Tong JQ
    3. Conant LL
    4. Humphries CJ
    5. Binder JR

    (2022) Decoding the information structure underlying the neural representation of concepts

    PNAS 119:1–11.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2108091119

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Friederici AD
    2. Chomsky N
    3. Berwick RC
    4. Moro A
    5. Bolhuis JJ

    (2017) Language, mind and brain

    Nature Human Behaviour 1:713–722.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0184-4

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Fu Z
    2. Wang X
    3. Wang X
    4. Yang H
    5. Wang J
    6. Wei T
    7. Liao X
    8. Liu Z
    9. Chen H
    10. Bi Y

    (2023) Different computational relations in language are captured by distinct brain systems

    Cerebral Cortex 33:997–1013.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhac117

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
29. Website

    1. Gaetano JM

    (2017) Signal detection theory calculator 1.2

    Accessed December 23, 2021.

    https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Justin_Gaetano2
30. 1. Gelman SA
    2. Roberts SO

    (2017) How language shapes the cultural inheritance of categories

    PNAS 114:7900–7907.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1621073114

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Goldin-Meadow S
    2. Feldman H

    (1977) The development of language-like communication without a language model

    Science 197:401–403.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.877567

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
32. Book

    1. Goldin-Meadow S.

    (2003)

    The Resilience of Language: What gesture creation in deaf children can tell us about how all children learn language

    New York: Psychology Press.

    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Goldin-Meadow S
    2. Gelman SA
    3. Mylander C

    (2005) Expressing generic concepts with and without a language model

    Cognition 96:109–126.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2004.07.003

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Kriegeskorte N
    2. Goebel R
    3. Bandettini P

    (2006) Information-based functional brain mapping

    PNAS 103:3863–3868.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0600244103

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Kriegeskorte N
    2. Mur M
    3. Bandettini P

    (2008) Representational similarity analysis-connecting the branches of systems neuroscience

    Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience 2:4.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/neuro.06.004.2008

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Kriegeskorte N
    2. Mur M

    (2012) Inverse MDS: inferring dissimilarity structure from multiple item arrangements

    Frontiers in Psychology 3:245.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00245

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Lefly DL
    2. Pennington BF

    (2000) Reliability and validity of the adult reading history questionnaire

    Journal of Learning Disabilities 33:286–296.

    https://doi.org/10.1177/002221940003300306

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Lenneberg EH

    (1967) The biological foundations of language

    Hospital Practice 2:59–67.

    https://doi.org/10.1080/21548331.1967.11707799

    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Lieberman AM
    2. Borovsky A
    3. Hatrak M
    4. Mayberry RI

    (2015) Real-time processing of ASL signs: delayed first language acquisition affects organization of the mental lexicon

    Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition 41:1130–1139.

    https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000088

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Lillo-Martin D
    2. Henner J

    (2021) Acquisition of sign languages

    Annual Review of Linguistics 7:395–419.

    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-043020-092357

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Mahon BZ
    2. Caramazza A

    (2008) A critical look at the embodied cognition hypothesis and a new proposal for grounding conceptual content

    Journal of Physiology, Paris 102:59–70.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphysparis.2008.03.004

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Marshall C
    2. Jones A
    3. Denmark T
    4. Mason K
    5. Atkinson J
    6. Botting N
    7. Morgan G

    (2015) Deaf children’s non-verbal working memory is impacted by their language experience

    Frontiers in Psychology 6:527.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00527

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Martin A

    (2016) GRAPES-grounding representations in action, perception, and emotion systems: how object properties and categories are represented in the human brain

    Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 23:979–990.

    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0842-3

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Mayberry RI
    2. Fischer SD

    (1989) Looking through phonological shape to lexical meaning: the bottleneck of non-native sign language processing

    Memory & Cognition 17:740–754.

    https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03202635

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Mayberry RI
    2. Lock E
    3. Kazmi H

    (2002) Linguistic ability and early language exposure

    Nature 417:38.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/417038a

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Mayberry RI
    2. Chen JK
    3. Witcher P
    4. Klein D

    (2011) Age of acquisition effects on the functional organization of language in the adult brain

    Brain and Language 119:16–29.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2011.05.007

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Mayberry RI
    2. Davenport T
    3. Roth A
    4. Halgren E

    (2018) Neurolinguistic processing when the brain matures without language

    Cortex; a Journal Devoted to the Study of the Nervous System and Behavior 99:390–403.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2017.12.011

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
48. 1. Mayberry RI
    2. Kluender R

    (2018) Rethinking the critical period for language: new insights into an old question from American sign language

    Bilingualism 21:938–944.

    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728918000585

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
49. 1. Newport EL

    (1990) Maturational constraints on language development

    Cognitive Science 14:11–28.

    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1401_2

    • Google Scholar
50. 1. Oldfield RC

    (1971) The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory

    Neuropsychologia 9:97–113.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(71)90067-4

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
51. 1. Pallier C
    2. Devauchelle AD
    3. Dehaene S

    (2011) Cortical representation of the constituent structure of sentences

    PNAS 108:2522–2527.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1018711108

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
52. 1. Pascual B
    2. Masdeu JC
    3. Hollenbeck M
    4. Makris N
    5. Insausti R
    6. Ding SL
    7. Dickerson BC

    (2015) Large-scale brain networks of the human left temporal pole: a functional connectivity MRI study

    Cerebral Cortex 25:680–702.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bht260

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
53. 1. Patterson K
    2. Nestor PJ
    3. Rogers TT

    (2007) Where do you know what you know? The representation of semantic knowledge in the human brain

    Nature Reviews. Neuroscience 8:976–987.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2277

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
54. 1. Perszyk DR
    2. Waxman SR

    (2018) Linking language and cognition in infancy

    Annual Review of Psychology 69:231–250.

    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011701

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
55. 1. Power JD
    2. Barnes KA
    3. Snyder AZ
    4. Schlaggar BL
    5. Petersen SE

    (2012) Spurious but systematic correlations in functional connectivity MRI networks arise from subject motion

    NeuroImage 59:2142–2154.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.10.018

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
56. 1. Pylkkänen L

    (2019) The neural basis of combinatory SYNTAX and semantics

    Science 366:62–66.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aax0050

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
57. 1. Ralph MAL
    2. Jefferies E
    3. Patterson K
    4. Rogers TT

    (2017) The neural and computational bases of semantic cognition

    Nature Reviews. Neuroscience 18:42–55.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn.2016.150

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
58. 1. Ratan Murty NA
    2. Teng S
    3. Beeler D
    4. Mynick A
    5. Oliva A
    6. Kanwisher N

    (2020) Visual experience is not necessary for the development of face-selectivity in the lateral fusiform gyrus

    PNAS 117:23011–23020.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2004607117

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
59. Software

    1. R Development Core Team

    (2020) R: A language and environment for statistical computing, version 4.0.0

    R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.

    https://www.r-project.org/
60. 1. Richardson H
    2. Koster-Hale J
    3. Caselli N
    4. Magid R
    5. Benedict R
    6. Olson H
    7. Pyers J
    8. Saxe R

    (2020) Reduced neural selectivity for mental states in deaf children with delayed exposure to sign language

    Nature Communications 11:3246.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-17004-y

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
61. 1. Skotara N
    2. Salden U
    3. Kügow M
    4. Hänel-Faulhaber B
    5. Röder B

    (2012) The influence of language deprivation in early childhood on L2 processing: an Erp comparison of deaf native signers and deaf signers with a delayed language acquisition

    BMC Neuroscience 13:44.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2202-13-44

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
62. 1. Striem-Amit E
    2. Wang X
    3. Bi Y
    4. Caramazza A

    (2018) Neural representation of visual concepts in people born blind

    Nature Communications 9:5250.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-07574-3

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
63. Book

    1. Sun H
    2. Huang J
    3. Sun D
    4. Li D
    5. Xing H

    (1997)

    Introduction to language corpus system of modern Chinese study

    In: Hu MY, editors. Paper Collection for the Fifth World Chinese Teaching Symposium. Beijing: Peking University Publishers. pp. 459–466.

    • Google Scholar
64. 1. Tibshirani R
    2. Walther G
    3. Hastie T

    (2001) Estimating the number of clusters in a data set via the gap statistic

    Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B 63:411–423.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9868.00293

    • Google Scholar
65. 1. Tomaszewski P
    2. Krzysztofiak P
    3. Morford JP
    4. Eźlakowski W

    (2022) Effects of age-of-acquisition on proficiency in Polish sign language: insights to the critical period hypothesis

    Frontiers in Psychology 13:896339.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.896339

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
66. 1. Troche J
    2. Crutch S
    3. Reilly J

    (2014) Clustering, hierarchical organization, and the topography of abstract and concrete nouns

    Frontiers in Psychology 5:360.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00360

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
67. 1. Twomey T
    2. Price CJ
    3. Waters D
    4. MacSweeney M

    (2020) The impact of early language exposure on the neural system supporting language in deaf and hearing adults

    NeuroImage 209:116411.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.116411

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
68. 1. Tzourio-Mazoyer N
    2. Landeau B
    3. Papathanassiou D
    4. Crivello F
    5. Etard O
    6. Delcroix N
    7. Mazoyer B
    8. Joliot M

    (2002) Automated anatomical labeling of activations in SPM using a macroscopic anatomical parcellation of the MNI MRI single-subject brain

    NeuroImage 15:273–289.

    https://doi.org/10.1006/nimg.2001.0978

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
69. 1. Unger L
    2. Fisher AV

    (2021) The emergence of richly organized semantic knowledge from simple statistics: a synthetic review

    Developmental Review 60:100949.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2021.100949

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
70. 1. Wang J
    2. Conder JA
    3. Blitzer DN
    4. Shinkareva SV

    (2010) Neural representation of abstract and concrete concepts: a meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies

    Human Brain Mapping 31:1459–1468.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.20950

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
71. 1. Wang X
    2. Wu W
    3. Ling Z
    4. Xu Y
    5. Fang Y
    6. Wang X
    7. Binder JR
    8. Men W
    9. Gao JH
    10. Bi Y

    (2018) Organizational principles of abstract words in the human brain

    Cerebral Cortex 28:4305–4318.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhx283

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
72. 1. Wang X
    2. Wang B
    3. Bi Y

    (2019) Close yet independent: dissociation of social from valence and abstract semantic dimensions in the left anterior temporal lobe

    Human Brain Mapping 40:4759–4776.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.24735

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
73. 1. Wang X
    2. Men W
    3. Gao J
    4. Caramazza A
    5. Bi Y

    (2020) Two forms of knowledge representations in the human brain

    Neuron 107:383–393.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2020.04.010

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
74. 1. Wang X
    2. Bi Y

    (2021) Idiosyncratic tower of Babel: individual differences in word-meaning representation increase as word abstractness increases

    Psychological Science 32:1617–1635.

    https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976211003877

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
75. 1. Xia M
    2. Wang J
    3. He Y

    (2013) BrainNet viewer: a network visualization tool for human brain connectomics

    PLOS ONE 8:e68910.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0068910

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
76. 1. Yu X
    2. Ferradal SL
    3. Sliva DD
    4. Dunstan J
    5. Carruthers C
    6. Sanfilippo J
    7. Zuk J
    8. Zöllei L
    9. Boyd E
    10. Gagoski B
    11. Ou Y
    12. Grant PE
    13. Gaab N

    (2021) Functional connectivity in infancy and Toddlerhood predicts long-term language and Preliteracy outcomes

    Cerebral Cortex 4:bhab230.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhab230

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar

Author details

1. Xiaosha Wang

   1. State Key Laboratory of Cognitive Neuroscience and Learning & IDG/McGovern Institute for Brain Research, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China
   2. Beijing Key Laboratory of Brain Imaging and Connectomics, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Data curation, Software, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Validation, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Project administration, Writing – review and editing

   For correspondence

   wangxiaosha@bnu.edu.cn

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-2133-8161

2. Bijun Wang

   1. State Key Laboratory of Cognitive Neuroscience and Learning & IDG/McGovern Institute for Brain Research, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China
   2. Beijing Key Laboratory of Brain Imaging and Connectomics, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China

   Contribution

   Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Project administration

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

3. Yanchao Bi

   1. State Key Laboratory of Cognitive Neuroscience and Learning & IDG/McGovern Institute for Brain Research, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China
   2. Beijing Key Laboratory of Brain Imaging and Connectomics, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China
   3. Chinese Institute for Brain Research, Beijing, China

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Resources, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Project administration, Writing – review and editing

   For correspondence

   ybi@bnu.edu.cn

   Competing interests

   Senior Editor, eLife

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-0522-3372

• 1,363

  views

• 259

  downloads

• 6

  citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.