Graciela Tesan

Young children and cochlear implant patients each pose specific and different challenges for functional brain imaging. Specific technological solutions must be custom-engineered for each of these populations. The advent of these new custom-engineered MEG systems opens new avenues for research on the development of human cognitive brain function; and in the study of the effects of profound deafness, and restoration of hearing, on sensory and cognitive brain functions in children and adults. Sample Text Column 1 Cochlear Implant Recipients

Magnetoencephalography is a technique that detects magnetic fields associated with cortical activity [1]. The electrophysiological activity of the brain generates electric fields- that can be recorded using electroencephalography (EEG)- and their concomitant magnetic fields- detected by MEG. MEG signals are detected by specialized sensors known as superconducting quantum interference devices (SQUIDs). Superconducting sensors require cooling with liquid helium at-270 °C. They are contained inside a vacumm-insulated helmet called a dewar, which is filled with liquid. SQUIDS are placed in fixed positions inside the helmet dewar in the helium coolant, and a subject's head is placed inside the helmet dewar for MEG measurements. The helmet dewar must be sized to satisfy opposing constraints. Clearly, it must be large enough to fit most or all of the heads in the population that will be studied. However, the helmet must also be small enough to keep most of the SQUID sensors within ran...

Magnetoencephalography is a technique that detects magnetic fields associated with cortical activity [1]. The electrophysiological activity of the brain generates electric fields- that can be recorded using electroencephalography (EEG)- and their concomitant magnetic fields- detected by MEG. MEG signals are detected by specialized sensors known as superconducting quantum interference devices (SQUIDs). Superconducting sensors require cooling with liquid helium at-270 °C. They are contained inside a vacumm-insulated helmet called a dewar, which is filled with liquid. SQUIDS are placed in fixed positions inside the helmet dewar in the helium coolant, and a subject's head is placed inside the helmet dewar for MEG measurements. The helmet dewar must be sized to satisfy opposing constraints. Clearly, it must be large enough to fit most or all of the heads in the population that will be studied. However, the helmet must also be small enough to keep most of the SQUID sensors within ran...

Two triggering models of parameter-setting, the Hierarchical Acquisition model endorsed by Baker (2001, 2005) and Wexler’s (1998) Very Early Parameter Setting model, are compared with Yang’s (2002, 2004) Variational model. The Variational model employs statistical learning mechanisms for parameter-setting. Parameter values compete, with delays occurring when the critical input is sparse. Given the uniformity assumption, children in the same linguistic community undergo a similar, gradual development. On the Hierarchical Acquisition model, children initially choose either parameter value, with potential delays arising from hierarchical ordering of parameters. Change is precipitous when initiated. To adjudicate between models, we conducted a longitudinal study of 4 children, ranging from 1;9 to 2;1 at the start of the study, who were in the throes of setting two interlocking parameters governing inflection and negation. Different developmental patterns were observed depending on initi...

ing away from V2 effects, what makes Swedish and English different? One could capture the different effects of negation in Swedish and English in parametric terms. We assume that NEG varies parametrically, as in (8): (8) NEG Parameter a. NEG is mapped to a head [H] position b. NEG is mapped to a specifier [spec] position The effects of this parameter are clearly observed in languages that select affixal INFL (assuming Relativized Minimality (Rizzi 1990)). Morphological merge is blocked by the presence of an intervening head (Halle and Marantz 1993), but not by an intervening specifier (Bobalijk 1995; Lasnik 1995a). Consequently, a grammar that selects a [spec] value for NEG can lower INFL to the verb whereas a grammar that selects a [H] value cannot lower INFL to the verb because adjacency of the verb and INFL is disrupted. If we assume that English and Swedish both select for affixal INFL, we can now explain the difference between (6a) and (7b): Swedish selects a [spec] value for NEG while English selects a [H] value. The combination of these two parameters related to the functional heads INFL and NEG results in a circumscribed parametric space, shown in Table 1.

The word any may appear in some sentences, but not in others. For example, any is permitted in sentences that contain the word nobody, as in Nobody ate any fruit. However, in a minimally different context any seems strikingly anomalous: *Everybody ate any fruit. The aim of the present study was to investigate how the brain responds to the word any in such minimally different contexts – where it is permitted (licensed) and where it is not permitted (unlicensed). Brain responses were measured from adult readers using magnetoencephalography (MEG). The results showed significantly larger responses to permissible contexts in the left posterior temporal areas between 400–500 ms and 590–660 ms. These results clarify the anatomy and timing of brain processes that contribute to our judgment that a word such as any is or is not permitted in a given context.

The word any may appear in some sentences, but not in others. For example, any is permitted in sentences that contain the word nobody, as in Nobody ate any fruit. However, in a minimally different context any seems strikingly anomalous: *Everybody ate any fruit. The aim of the present study was to investigate how the brain responds to the word any in such minimally different contexts – where it is permitted (licensed) and where it is not permitted (unlicensed). Brain responses were measured from adult readers using magnetoencephalography (MEG). The results showed significantly larger responses to permissible contexts in the left posterior temporal areas between 400–500 ms and 590–660 ms. These results clarify the anatomy and timing of brain processes that contribute to our judgment that a word such as any is or is not permitted in a given context.

The advent of MEG systems sized for young children opens important new opportunities to study brain development. The new system, together with a protocol that aligns experimental requirements with the capacities of children, can be used to study cognitive and language processes in healthy, awake children aged three to six.