Format

Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Psychol Bull. 2013 Jul;139(4):766-91. doi: 10.1037/a0030266. Epub 2012 Oct 8.

Can cognitive models explain brain activation during word and pseudoword reading? A meta-analysis of 36 neuroimaging studies.

Author information

  • 1Medical Research Council Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, Cambridge CB2 7EF, England. joanne.taylor@mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk

Erratum in

  • Psychol Bull. 2013 Jul;139(4):900.

Abstract

Reading in many alphabetic writing systems depends on both item-specific knowledge used to read irregular words (sew, yacht) and generative spelling-sound knowledge used to read pseudowords (tew, yash). Research into the neural basis of these abilities has been directed largely by cognitive accounts proposed by the dual-route cascaded and triangle models of reading. We develop a framework that enables predictions for neural activity to be derived from cognitive models of reading using 2 principles: (a) the extent to which a model component or brain region is engaged by a stimulus and (b) how much effort is exerted in processing that stimulus. To evaluate the derived predictions, we conducted a meta-analysis of 36 neuroimaging studies of reading using the quantitative activation likelihood estimation technique. Reliable clusters of activity are localized during word versus pseudoword and irregular versus regular word reading and demonstrate a great deal of convergence between the functional organization of the reading system put forward by cognitive models and the neural systems activated during reading tasks. Specifically, left-hemisphere activation clusters are revealed reflecting orthographic analysis (occipitotemporal cortex), lexical and/or semantic processing (anterior fusiform, middle temporal gyrus), spelling-sound conversion (inferior parietal cortex), and phonological output resolution (inferior frontal gyrus). Our framework and results establish that cognitive models of reading are relevant for interpreting neuroimaging studies and that neuroscientific studies can provide data relevant for advancing cognitive models. This article thus provides a firm empirical foundation from which to improve integration between cognitive and neural accounts of the reading process.

PMID:
23046391
DOI:
10.1037/a0030266
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for American Psychological Association
    Loading ...
    Support Center