As discussed by ourselves[1xRight on in sign language. Paulesu, E. and Mehler, J. Nature. 1998; 392: 233–234Crossref | PubMed | Scopus (17)See all References][1]and also by Hickok and colleagues in the preceding comment[2xWhat's right about the neural organization of sign language? A perspective on recent neuroimaging results. Hickok, G., Bellugi, U., and Klima, E. Trends Cognit. Sci. 1998; 2: 465–468Abstract | Full Text | Full Text PDF | PubMed | Scopus (33)See all References][2]and elsewhere[3xLanguage, modality and the brain. Bellugi, U., Poizner, H., and Klima, E. Trends Neurosci. 1989; 12: 380–388Abstract | Full Text PDF | PubMed | Scopus (79)See all References][3], we believe that the available evidence from fMRI and other studies points to a left hemispheric dominance for language, even in the case of sign language[4xThe neurobiology of sign language and its implications for the neural basis of language. Hickok, G., Bellugi, U., and Klima, E. Nature. 1996; 381: 699–702Crossref | PubMed | Scopus (97)See all References, 5xNeural correlates of thinking in sign language. McGuire, P. et al. NeuroReport. 1997; 8: 695–698Crossref | PubMedSee all References, 6xSign language aphasia during left-hemisphere Amytal injection. Damasio, A. et al. Nature. 1986; 322: 363–365Crossref | PubMed | Scopus (35)See all References]. However, while the left hemispheric activations seen in recent imaging data for sign language could be largely predicted from lesion data, we are still inclined to believe, in contrast to Hickok et al.[2xWhat's right about the neural organization of sign language? A perspective on recent neuroimaging results. Hickok, G., Bellugi, U., and Klima, E. Trends Cognit. Sci. 1998; 2: 465–468Abstract | Full Text | Full Text PDF | PubMed | Scopus (33)See all References][2], that the right hemispheric activations described by Neville et al.[7xCerebral organization for language in deaf and hearing subjects: biological constraints and effects of experience. Neville, H. et al. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 1998; 95: 922–929Crossref | PubMed | Scopus (302)See all References][7]are not artefactual—even though a real surprise, given the expectation from patient data. The baseline for the sign-language comprehension task used by Neville et al. (observation of non-linguistic gestures made by a signer) was closely matched to the experimental task. Auditory-language comprehension tasks using a similarly close baseline, such as backwards speech, do not show such prominent activations in the right hemisphere[8xThe bilingual brain: proficiency and age of acquisition of the second language. Perani, D. et al. Brain. 1998; 121: 1841–1852Crossref | PubMed | Scopus (370)See all References][8].As we proposed in our commentary[1xRight on in sign language. Paulesu, E. and Mehler, J. Nature. 1998; 392: 233–234Crossref | PubMed | Scopus (17)See all References][1], reconciliation of the mismatch between functional imaging and lesion data will require further investigations on both sides. Even if our suggestion[1xRight on in sign language. Paulesu, E. and Mehler, J. Nature. 1998; 392: 233–234Crossref | PubMed | Scopus (17)See all References][1]turned out to be true—that the right hemispheric activations seen for sign language by Neville et al. could have been due to prosodic processing[9xDominant language functions of the right hemisphere? Prosody and emotional gesturing. Ross, E. and Mesulam, M. Arch. Neurol. 1979; 36: 144–148Crossref | PubMed | Scopus (381)See all References][9]—this would still be a challenge for our understanding of the biological causes of the regional brain distribution of linguistic competences in both hearing and congenitally deaf subjects. Left-sided `dominance', together with right-sided linguistic competence of the kind seen in hearing subjects[9xDominant language functions of the right hemisphere? Prosody and emotional gesturing. Ross, E. and Mesulam, M. Arch. Neurol. 1979; 36: 144–148Crossref | PubMed | Scopus (381)See all References, 10xThe role of the right hemisphere in the interpretation of figurative aspects of language: a positron emission tomography activation study. Bottini, G. et al. Brain. 1994; 117: 1231–1253Crossref | PubMed | Scopus (407)See all References], is a complex scenario that is not evaluated by the hypotheses usually discussed in neuro-linguistics and neither is it discussed by Hickok et al. in their present comment.

中文翻译：

---

Paulesu 和 Mehler 的回应

正如我们自己所讨论的[1xRight 手语。Paulesu, E. 和 Mehler, J. Nature。1998年；392: 233–234Crossref | 医学 | Scopus (17) 参见所有参考文献][1] 以及 Hickok 和他的同事在前面的评论中[2x手语的神经组织是什么？对最近神经影像学结果的看法。Hickok, G.、Bellugi, U. 和 Klima, E. Trends Cognit。科学。1998年；2: 465–468 摘要 | 全文 | 全文PDF | 医学 | Scopus (33)查看所有参考文献][2]和其他地方[3x语言、模态和大脑。Bellugi, U.、Poizner, H. 和 Klima, E. Trends Neurosci。1989 年；12: 380–388 摘要 | 全文PDF | 医学 | Scopus (79) 查看所有参考文献][3]，我们认为来自 fMRI 和其他研究的现有证据表明语言的左半球优势，即使在手语的情况下[4x手语的神经生物学及其对语言神经基础的影响。Hickok, G.、Bellugi, U. 和 Klima, E. Nature。1996年；381: 699–702Crossref | 医学 | Scopus (97) 查看所有参考资料，5xNeural correlates of thinking in hand language。McGuire, P. 等。神经报告。1997年；8: 695–698Crossref | PubMed 查看所有参考文献，左半球 Amytal 注射期间的 6x 手语失语症。达马西奥，A. 等。自然。1986 年；322: 363–365Crossref | 医学 | Scopus (35) 查看所有参考文献]。然而，虽然在最近的手语成像数据中看到的左半球激活可以在很大程度上根据病变数据进行预测，但与 Hickok 等人相比，我们仍然倾向于相信。[2x手语的神经组织是什么？对最近神经影像学结果的看法。Hickok, G.、Bellugi, U. 和 Klima, E. Trends Cognit。科学。1998年；2: 465–468 摘要 | 全文 | 全文PDF | 医学 | Scopus (33) 参见所有参考文献][2]，即 Neville 等人描述的右半球激活。[7x 聋人和听力受试者语言的大脑组织：生物学约束和经验影响。内维尔，H. 等。过程 纳特尔。阿卡德。科学。美国 1998 年；95: 922–929Crossref | 医学 | Scopus (302) 查看所有参考文献][7] 并非人为制作——尽管考虑到患者数据的预期，这确实令人惊讶。Neville 等人使用的手语理解任务的基线。（观察签名者做出的非语言手势）与实验任务密切相关。使用类似接近基线的听觉语言理解任务，例如倒退语音，在右半球没有表现出如此显着的激活[8x双语大脑：第二语言的熟练程度和年龄。Perani, D. 等。脑。1998年；121: 1841–1852Crossref | 医学 | Scopus (370) 查看所有参考文献][8]。正如我们在评论中提出的[1xRight on in hand language。Paulesu, E. 和 Mehler, J. Nature。1998年；392: 233–234Crossref | 医学 | Scopus (17)参见所有参考文献][1]，功能成像和病变数据不匹配的协调需要双方进一步调查。即使我们的建议[1xRight 手语。Paulesu, E. 和 Mehler, J. Nature。1998年；392: 233–234Crossref | 医学 | Scopus (17) See all References][1] 结果证明是正确的——Neville 等人在手语中看到的右半球激活。可能是由于韵律处理[9x右半球的优势语言功能？韵律和情感手势。Ross, E. 和 Mesulam, M. Arch。神经病。1979年；36: 144–148Crossref | 医学 | Scopus (381) 查看所有参考文献][9]——这对于我们理解听力和先天性耳聋受试者语言能力区域大脑分布的生物学原因仍然是一个挑战。左侧“优势”，以及在听力对象中看到的右侧语言能力[9x右半球的优势语言功能？韵律和情感手势。Ross, E. 和 Mesulam, M. Arch。神经病。1979年；36: 144–148Crossref | 医学 | Scopus (381) 查看所有参考资料，10x 右半球在解释语言比喻方面的作用：正电子发射断层扫描激活研究。Bottini, G. 等。脑。1994年；117: 1231–1253Crossref | 医学 | Scopus (407) See all References]，是一个复杂的场景，神经语言学中通常讨论的假设没有评估它，Hickok 等人也没有讨论它。在他们目前的评论中。