| The language has clearly cultural characteristics, and different nationalities and raceshave their own special language and text symbols. However, the question is whetheractivities of the language areas are different among the populations with differentlanguages. Although the language features has been well studied, some questions are stillunclear. For example, do the monolingual, bilingual and multilingual speakers adopt thesame neural mechanisms of language? Does the age learning a second or third languageand the degree of language proficiency affect the language areas? According to ourpreliminary study on Xinjiang Uygur monolingual and bilingual brain languagefunctional areas, we have demonstrated that the scope and volume of the language areasof activation in the Uighur population was significantly greater than that in the Hanpopulation during the task of native language speaking. Furthermore, in the Uighurbilingual speakers, most of the brain language areas overlapped with, whereas, their ownspecific activation areas during their two languages task. Basing on our preliminary data,this study continued to use BOLD technology to investigate the characteristics of brainfunctional areas in the Uighurs multilingual (Uighur, Chinese and English).Our studyincludes three parts.Objective:1) To explore the characteristics of functional areas and the differencesin lateralization during the brain processes three languages tasks in the multilingualpopulation with Uyghur as mother tongue, Chinese as a second language, and English asa third language.2) To explore whether there is specific functional areas during the brainprocesses the second, third language by comparative analysis of the similarities anddifferences of activated scope and volume.3) To explore whether there are differences offunctional areas as the different second-language-learning ages. Methods:1)20healthyright-handed and highly proficient Uighurs multilingual (Uighur, Chinese and English),completed the semantic judgment task in English and Uygur words during fMRI imaging;2)23healthy right-handed and highly proficient Uighurs multilingual participated in this study. Chinese as a second language (studying Chinese before3years-old), and Englishas a third language. they were asked to perform semantic judgment tasks by cognitivestimulation with three different task (including monosyllabic notional Uygur languagewords, single Chinese characters and English words) during fMRI imaging.3)21healthyright-handed and highly proficient Uighurs multilingual participated in this study.Chinese as a second language (studying Chinese after6years-old), and English as a thirdlanguage. they were asked to perform same semantic judgment tasks by cognitivestimulation with three different task (including monosyllabic notional Uygur languagewords, single Chinese characters and English words) during fMRI imaging.4)18and20healthy right-handed and highly proficient Uighurs multilingual participated in this study.Chinese as a second language (studying Chinese before3years-old and after6years-old).they were asked to perform same semantic judgment Chinese tasks during fMRIimaging.All Uygur multilinguals came from Central Dialect regions of XinJiang. Thefunctional images of brain were acquired with a PHILIPS Achieva nova dual1.5MRI.The functional datasets were analyzed using Statistical Parametric Mappingsoftware and overlaid on T1-weighted anatomic images normalized to a standard(Montreal Neurology Institute) space. Analysis of laterality indices derived from voxelcounts in regions of interest (ROIs). Results:1) During the Uygur monolinguals andEnglish words tasks some cortical and regions were activated. Same activated areasincluded: bilateral middle/inferior frontal gyrus, left precuneus, bilateral middle temporalgyrus, left superior/inferior parietal lobule, bilateral occipital middle gyrus and somecerebellar areas. The activation volume in left hemisphere was larger than that in righthemisphere. We also observed distinct regions of activation for Uygur monolinguals inthe Left superior temporal gyrus, left parietal lobule, right insular lobe, right fusiformgyrus. While the areas in the bilateral medial frontal gyrus, right superior and inferiorparietal lobules, right parietal lobule, left insular lobe, left fusiform gyrusby wereactivated by English stimulation;2) Same activated areas included: bilateralmiddle/inferior frontal gyrus, bilateral precuneus, bilateral middle temporal gyrus, leftsuperior/inferior parietal lobule, bilateral fusiform gyrus, bilateral occipital middle gyrusand some cerebellar areas. The activation volume in left hemisphere was larger than thatin right hemisphere. We also observed distinct regions of activation for Uygurmonolinguals in the Left superior temporal gyrus. But activation in the left supper frontalgyrus, left angular gyrus, right superior and inferior parietal lobules by Chinesestimulation. While the bilateral medial frontal gyrus, left angular gyrus were activated by English stimulation.3) Same activated areas included: bilateral middle/inferior frontalgyrus, bilateral precuneus, bilateral middle temporal gyrus, bilatera parietal lobule,bilateral fusiform gyrus, bilateral occipital middle gyrus and some cerebellar areas. Theactivation volume in left hemisphere was larger than that in right hemisphere. We alsoobserved distinct regions of activation for Uygur monolinguals in the left superiortemporal gyrus. But activation in the bilateral supper frontal gyrus, left angular gyrus byChinese stimulation. While the bilateral medial frontal gyrus, left angular gyrus wereactivated by English stimulation.4) The bilateral superior frontal gyrus were activated inthe Uighurs multilingual participaters. Chinese as a second language (studying Chinesebefore3years-old and after6years-old).There were some difference in the activatedscope. But the activation volume had no statistical differences. Conclusions:1) Theresult showed some activated brain areas overlap when subjects were stimulated bothwith English and Uighur anguages, while some activated brain areas were languagespecific. The dominant hemisphere for both languages were left hemisphere.Lateralization index of English and Uighur had no statistical differences (P＞0.05).2) Inthose groups (studying Chinese before3years-old), the result also showed someactivated brain areas overlap, while some activated brain areas were language specific.The dominant hemisphere for three languages were left hemisphere. Lateralization indexof three languages had no statistical differences (P＞0.05).3) In those groups (studyingChinese after6years-old), the result also showed some activated brain areas overlap,while some activated brain areas were language specific. The dominant hemisphere forthree languages were left hemisphere. Lateralization index of three languages had nostatistical differences (P＞0.05). We also found that the upper part of the frontal lobe andleft angular gyrus were significantly activated within the stimulation of Chinese andEnglish tasks, suggesting that there is strong relationship between the brain regions andlanguage transition and translation.4) We also found the activated scope were differentwith the different second-language-learning ages, but there was no significant differencein the activated volume.Our findings may complement current understanding of the language function of thebrain；provide a new basis for further study of neural network mechanism of the brainlanguage function, as well as a hint for the clinical treatment and prognosis of the patientswith language problem, and may help to better understand the mechanism of recoveryafter language function injury. |
PDF Full Text Request