Author Response: Early Language Exposure Affects Neural Mechanisms of Semantic Representations
Xiaosha Wang,Onur Asan,Yanchao Bi
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/elife.81681.sa2
2023-01-01
Abstract:Full text Figures and data Side by side Abstract Editor's evaluation eLife digest Introduction Results Discussion Materials and methods Data availability References Decision letter Author response Article and author information Metrics Abstract One signature of the human brain is its ability to derive knowledge from language inputs, in addition to nonlinguistic sensory channels such as vision and touch. How does human language experience modulate the mechanism by which semantic knowledge is stored in the human brain? We investigated this question using a unique human model with varying amounts and qualities of early language exposure: early deaf adults who were born to hearing parents and had reduced early exposure and delayed acquisition of any natural human language (speech or sign), with early deaf adults who acquired sign language from birth as the control group that matches on nonlinguistic sensory experiences. Neural responses in a semantic judgment task with 90 written words that were familiar to both groups were measured using fMRI. The deaf group with reduced early language exposure, compared with the deaf control group, showed reduced semantic sensitivity, in both multivariate pattern (semantic structure encoding) and univariate (abstractness effect) analyses, in the left dorsal anterior temporal lobe (dATL). These results provide positive, causal evidence that language experience drives the neural semantic representation in the dATL, highlighting the roles of language in forming human neural semantic structures beyond nonverbal sensory experiences. Editor's evaluation This study provides important evidence regarding the development of concept representations, using functional brain imaging to compare concept structure in people with different amounts of language experience. The analyses, which are overall solid, suggest that concept representations differ as a function of childhood language experience. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.81681.sa0 Decision letter Reviews on Sciety eLife's review process eLife digest 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. Introduction 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. Results Participants’ background information and task fMRI design We recruited two adult groups of congenitally or early deaf participants, including 16 native deaf signers and 23 delayed deaf signers (Table 1; Table 1—source data 1). Native signers were born in deaf families; delayed signers were born in hearing families and became exposed to Chinese sign language (CSL) between the ages of 4 and 10 (mean ± standard deviation [SD]: 6.91±1.62 years of age). Note that in China the nation-wide hearing screening for newborns or during early infancy started in 2009 and our participants were born before 2000. The family signing environment was confirmed by the subjective ratings of parental CSL proficiency: Native signers rated their parents to have much more proficient CSL skills than delayed signers did on a 7-point scale (Welch’s t31.7 = 13.54, p=1.10 × 10–14; each participant provided CSL ratings for both parents and the maximum score was used for group comparison). All deaf participants received formal education in special education programs since elementary school. The two deaf groups were matched on demographic variables (gender, age, years of education, ps > 0.15) and subjective social status (Adler et al., 2000) during childhood (p = 0.54). While the two groups significantly differed in the education levels of their parents (Table 1; ps < 0.053), the direction was in favor of delayed signers as their hearing parents received more formal education than the deaf parents of native signers. In terms of language skills, the two deaf groups were matched on self-reported proficiency of CSL comprehension, production, and lipreading skills (ps > 0.34), and on the reading disability risk measured by the Adult Reading History Questionnaire (ARHQ, Lefly and Pennington, 2000) (p = 0.22). Written word processing was further evaluated in two reaction-time tasks (i.e. visual lexical decision and word-triplet semantic judgment) and no significant group differences were found (Figure 1—figure supplement 1). In summary, the native and delayed deaf groups were carefully matched on a wide range of demographic and later language performances (sign, lipreading, and written). Thus, different early language exposure is a strong candidate to account for the neural group differences reported below. Table 1 Background demographic and language information of native and delayed signers. Native(n=16)Delayed(n=23)Welch’s tp-ValueHedges' g AoA of CSL (years of age)0±06.91±1.62 Parental CSL proficiency (1–7 scale)* §6.81±0.542.74±1.2913.54<0.0014.04 Demographic information Gender11 M, 5 F12 M, 11 F Age (years)28.50±7.1327.09±5.870.650.520.21 Education (years)14.13±2.3115.09±1.41–1.490.15–0.49 McArthur Scale of Subjective Social Status, childhood (1–10 scale)†3.88±2.584.35±1.97–0.620.54–0.20 Father’s education (years) §7.19±3.0410.39±2.84–3.330.002–1.07 Mother’s education (years)6.56±3.148.52±2.73–2.020.053–0.65 Language information CSL comprehension (1–7 scale)*6.06±0.936.17±0.89–0.380.71–0.12 CSL production (1–7 scale)*5.75±1.005.87±1.10–0.350.73–0.11 Lipreading of acquaintances (1–7 scale)*2.81±1.113.17±1.19–0.970.34–0.31 Lipreading of strangers (1–7 scale)*1.88±0.811.87±0.970.020.990.01 Adult Reading History Questionnaire (ARHQ, 1–5 scale)‡2.59±0.682.84±0.52–1.250.22–0.41 ARHQ, Item 26, self-rated reading speed (1–5 scale)‡2.38±1.363.13±1.01–1.890.07–0.62 ARHQ, Item 29, self-rated writing skills (1–5 scale)‡ §2.25±1.003.17±0.94–2.910.007–0.93 ARHQ, Item 40, self-rated reading comprehension (1–5 scale)‡2.44±0.812.70±0.97–0.900.38–0.28 * Higher scores indicate higher proficiency. † Higher scores indicate higher social status; from Adler et al., 2000. ‡ Higher scores indicate a higher risk of reading disability; from Lefly and Pennington, 2000. § p < 0.01, significant differences between the two deaf groups. Table 1—source data 1 Background demographic and language information of native and delayed signers. https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/81681/elife-81681-table1-data1-v2.xlsx Download elife-81681-table1-data1-v2.xlsx The stimuli of task fMRI were 90 written words that were highly familiar to both groups, including 40 concrete/object words varying in sensory and motor properties (animals, face/body parts, artifacts) and 50 abstract/nonobject words varying in social and emotional contents. These words were grouped into 10 categories based on the group-averaged semantic multi-arrangement performances in an independent group of 32 hearing participants (see Materials and methods, Figure 1a, and Figure 1—source data 1). Both deaf groups judged these words to be highly familiar (7-point familiarity ratings from 8 native signers: 6.72±0.17; 13 delayed signers: 6.86±0.15; 7 being most familiar) and yielded similar word-relational structures in a 1 hr semantic distance judgment task, in which each participant (16 native and 21 delayed signers) produced a 90 × 90 semantic representational distance matrix (RDM). The group-averaged semantic RDMs of the two deaf groups were strongly correlated (Spearman’s rho = 0.71, n = 4005; Figure 1a). At the individual level, correlations with the benchmark (the group-averaged RDM of hearing participants) did not significantly differ between the two deaf groups (Welch’s t31.3 = –0.37, p = 0.71; Figure 1—source data 2). Figure 1 with 2 supplements see all Download asset Open asset The word stimuli, task fMRI procedure, and regions of interest (ROIs) in this study. (a) Word stimuli in the task fMRI. Ninety words were used, including 40 concrete/object words and 50 abstract/nonobject words, which were grouped into fine-grained categories based on k-means clustering of the group-averaged semantic space of 32 hearing participants. The left panel shows the group-averaged semantic representational matrices (RDM) in hearing participants, native signers, and delayed signers. The right panel shows the Spearman’s rho between each deaf participant’s semantic RDM and the group-averaged semantic RDM in hearing participants. n = 16 in the native group; n = 21 in the delayed group. Error bars indicate 1 s.e.m. n.s., not significant, p > 0.05, Welch’s t-test. (b) Task fMRI procedure. During scanning, participants were asked to think about each of 90 target word meanings (displayed in black, e.g. ‘panda’, ‘reason’) and to determine whether occasional words displayed in red (catch trials, e.g. ‘justification’) were semantically related to the previous word. There were 90 target word trials (each word appeared once) and 14 catch trials in each run. (c) Semantic ROIs were functionally identified by contrasting abstract/nonobject words with concrete/object words in 33 hearing participants at the threshold of voxel-level p < 0.001, cluster-level FWE-corrected p < 0.05. dATL, dorsal anterior temporal lobe; IFG, inferior frontal gyrus; pMTG, posterior middle temporal gyrus. L, left hemisphere; R, right hemisphere. Figure 1—source data 1 Ninety words in the fMRI task, grouped into 10 semantic clusters based on k-means clustering of the group-mean hearing semantic space. https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/81681/elife-81681-fig1-data1-v2.docx Download elife-81681-fig1-data1-v2.docx Figure 1—source data 2 Spearman’s rho between each deaf participant’s semantic representational distance matrix (RDM) and the group-averaged semantic RDM in hearing participants. https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/81681/elife-81681-fig1-data2-v2.xlsx Download elife-81681-fig1-data2-v2.xlsx Figure 1—source data 3 Details of semantic regions of interest (ROIs), including cluster location, extent, peak t values, and Montreal Neurological Institute (MNI) coordinates. https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/81681/elife-81681-fig1-data3-v2.docx Download elife-81681-fig1-data3-v2.docx In the MRI scanner, participants were asked to think about the meaning of each of the 90 words (condition-rich fMRI design; Kriegeskorte et al., 2008) and to decide whether a word in red (catch trials) was semantically related to its previous word (i.e. oddball one-back semantic judgment, Figure 1b). We first examined the two-deaf-group differences in brain regions preferring abstract/nonobject words to concrete/object words, which have been proposed to relate to verbal semantic processing (Binder et al., 2009; Wang et al., 2010). These regions were functionally localized by contrasting abstract/nonobject words (e.g. reason) to concrete/object words (e.g. panda) in an independent group of 33 hearing participants (voxel-level p<0.001, cluster-level FWE-corrected p<0.05). This contrast in the hearing group resulted in regions in the frontal and temporal cortices that were well aligned with the literature (Figure 1c; Figure 1—source data 3). In particular, the left dATL, the left inferior frontal gyrus (IFG), and the left posterior middle temporal gyrus (pMTG) were most consistently reported in the meta-analyses (Binder et al., 2009; Bucur and Papagno, 2021; Wang et al., 2010) and were taken as our primary regions of interest (ROIs). Results for the other clusters are shown in Figure 1—figure supplement 2 (no significant group differences). We then carried out whole-brain analyses to explore the two-deaf-group differences beyond these semantic ROIs. We focused on two neural semantic effects: (1) representational similarity analysis (RSA) of word meaning by correlating 90 words’ neural RDMs with semantic RDMs (i.e. semantically related words have similar neural patterns) and (2) the univariate semantic abstractness effects. Semantic structure representation: dATL alteration in delayed signers We first examined whether early-life language exposure affects neural representations of the semantic space using RSA (Figure 2a, Kriegeskorte et al., 2008). We estimated the multivoxel activation pattern for each target word and, in a given ROI, calculated the correlation distance (1-Pearson correlation) of the multivoxel activation patterns between each word pair to build a 90 × 90 neural RDM. As a sanity check, we first carried out whole-brain searchlight RSA of visual similarity of written words, by computing Spearman’s rank correlation between the pixelwise dissimilarity of the 90 words and neural RDMs, and observed significant encoding of written word visual similarity in the early visual cortex in both native and delayed signers at the threshold of voxel-level p < 0.001, cluster-level FWE-corrected p < 0.05 (Figure 2—figure supplement 1). To quantify the semantic information encoded in the neural RDMs, in each deaf subject, we computed Spearman’s partial correlation between the neural RDMs and the 10-category benchmark semantic RDM (i.e. those of the hearing group), while controlling for the stimulus low-level visual and phonological RDMs (see Materials and methods). Note that we opted for the categorical structural similarity based on the clustering analyses to boost signal and to allow for better generalization across items (i.e. along the categorical structure). This approach may lose the important graded space especially for the abstract items, and we carried out a validation analysis using the continuous semantic distances specifically focused on the abstract items (see below). Figure 2 with 1 supplement see all Download asset Open asset Effects of early language exposure on neural representations of semantic knowledge. (a) Representational similarity analysis (RSA) procedure. For each participant, a neural representational distance matrix (RDM) was computed as the correlation distance of multivoxel activity patterns (in a given regions of interest [ROI]) for each pair of words and then correlated with the hearing-group-level semantic category RDM to quantify semantic information encoded in the neural RDM. (b) ROI-level RSA results. Error bars indicate 1 s.e.m. n.s., not significant, p > 0.05; *, p < 0.05; **, p < 0.01; ***, p < 0.001. ROI results were assessed using one-sample t-tests (one-tailed) for each group; group differences were examined using two-tailed Welch’s t-tests. dATL, dorsal anterior temporal lobe; pMTG, posterior middle temporal gyrus; IFG, inferior frontal gyrus. (c) Whole-brain searchlight RSA results. The statistical maps were thresholded at voxel-level p < 0.001, cluster size > 10 voxels. Brain results were visualized using the ‘Maximum Voxel’ mapping algorithm in BrainNet Viewer to illustrate small clusters. Clusters in black lines survived the cluster-level FWE-corrected p < 0.05. L, left hemisphere; R, right hemisphere. n = 16 in the native group; n = 23 in the delayed group. Figure 2—source data 1 Region of interest (ROI)-level representational similarity analysis (RSA) results in the two deaf groups. https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/81681/elife-81681-fig2-data1-v2.xlsx Download elife-81681-fig2-data1-v2.xlsx Figure 2—source data 2 Cluster details of the whole-brain searchlight representational similarity analysis (RSA) results. https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/81681/elife-81681-fig2-data2-v2.docx Download elife-81681-fig2-data2-v2.docx ROI-level RSA was carried out in the left dATL, pMTG, and IFG. As shown in Figure 2, Figure 2—source data 1, the three ROIs significantly encoded the semantic space in native signers (t15 > 3.04, one-tailed ps < 0.004, Cohen’s d > 0.76). In delayed signers, the left dATL and pMTG also significantly encoded the semantic space (t22 > 2.07, one-tailed ps < 0.025, Cohen’s d > 0.43) and the left IFG showed a similar, nonsignificant, trend (t22 = 1.31, one-tailed p = 0.10, Cohen’s d = 0.27). Critically, group differences were observed in the left dATL (Welch’s t36.7 = 3.15, two-tailed p=0.003, Hedges’ g = 0.98), not in the left pMTG or IFG (ps > 0.26). Note that we did not observe a significant group-by-ROI interaction in the two-way ANOVA (F(2,74) = 1.59, p = 0.21). We then carried out whole-brain searchlight RSA (Kriegeskorte et al., 2006) to explore group differences in semantic encoding beyond the semantic ROIs defined above (Figure 2c; Figure 2—source data 2). At the threshold of voxel-level p < 0.001, cluster-level FWE-corrected p < 0.05, in native signers, the semantic encoding was observed in the left dATL, IFG, pMTG, along with adjacent parietal and occipital areas, dorsomedial prefrontal cortex, and frontal orbital cortex. In delayed signers, no brain regions survived the whole-brain correction; at a more lenient threshold of voxel p < 0.001, cluster size >10 voxels, semantic encoding could be observed in the left dATL, IFG, and clusters scattered in the left inferior parietal and occipital regions. Of course, such a thresholded map does not indicate true negatives in the delayed singer group. The whole-brain contrast between the two deaf groups peaked at the left dATL at the threshold of voxel p < 0.001, which was also the largest cluster (peak MNI coordinates: –60, 6,–20, peak t = 5.87, 162 voxels), converging well with the ROI results in that native signers showed stronger semantic encoding than delayed signers in the left dATL ROI. While this cluster was not large enough to survive the whole-brain correction (cluster FWE-corrected p = 0.22), the top 10 voxels survived the voxel-level correction of FWE-corrected p < 0.05. No areas were found to show significantly increased semantic information in delayed signers compared with native signers at the conventional threshold. Together, group differences were not apparent outside the ROIs analyzed in the previous section. To further validate the reduced semantic encoding in the left dATL, we carried out the following analyses: (1) Types of semantic distance measures: While semantic categories for concrete/object words are robust and well documented, the semantic categorization within the abstract/nonobject words is much fuzzier and remains controversial (Catricalà et al., 2014; Wang and Bi, 2021). The behavioral semantic RDM in Figure 1a indeed shows gradations in dissimilarity for abstract/nonobject words. We thus checked the two groups’ semantic RDMs using the continuous behavioral measures and further examined whether group differences in the left dATL were affected by the types of semantic distance (categorical vs. continuous) being used for abstract/nonobject words. The two deaf groups showed comparable similarities to the hearing benchmark (by correlating each deaf subject’s RDM with the group-averaged RDM of hearing subjects, Welch’s t23.0 = –0.12, two-tailed p = 0.90). RSA was performed by correlating each deaf subject’s neural RDM in the left dATL with these two types of semantic RDMs. Significant group differences were observed (Figure 3; Figure 3—source data 1), for both the categorical RDM (Welch’s t31.0 = 3.06, two-tailed p = 0.005, Hedges’ g = 0.98) and the continuous behavioral semantic RDM (Welch’s t37.0 = 2.47, two-tailed p = 0.018, Hedges’ g = 0.76), with significant semantic encoding in the dATL observed in both analyses for native signers (one-tailed ps < 0.003) and neither for delayed signers (one-tailed ps > 0.42). These results indicate that the reduced dATL encoding of abstract/nonobject word meanings induced by delayed L1 acquisition was reliable across different semantic distance measures. (2) Types of ROIs: To validate whether the dATL semantic reduction in delayed signers depends on particular ATL definitions and to explore potential group differences in other language-sensitive regions beyond the ROIs we localized, we performed the RSA in a commonly used language mask (contrasting intact sentences with nonword lists) (Fedorenko et al., 2010). As shown in Figure 4, Figure 4—source data 1, again we observed significant group differences in the ATL (Welch’s t33.1 = 3.71, two-tailed p = 7.53 × 10–4, Hedges’ g = 1.18), which also survived