Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26441712›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2015

Framing effects reveal discrete lexical-semantic and sublexical procedures in reading: an fMRI study.

Laura Danelli, Marco Marelli, Manuela Berlingeri, Marco Tettamanti, Maurizio Sberna, Eraldo Paulesu, Claudio Luzzatti

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Laura DanelliPsychology Department, University of Milan-Bicocca Milan, Italy ; NeuroMI -Milan Center for Neuroscience Milan, Italy.
Marco MarelliPsychology Department, University of Milan-Bicocca Milan, Italy ; Center for Mind/Brain Sciences, University of Trento Rovereto, Italy.
Manuela BerlingeriPsychology Department, University of Milan-Bicocca Milan, Italy ; NeuroMI -Milan Center for Neuroscience Milan, Italy.
Marco TettamantiDivision of Neuroscience and Department of Nuclear Medicine, San Raffaele Scientific Institute Milan, Italy.
Maurizio SbernaNeuroradiology Department, Niguarda Ca' Granda Hospital Milan, Italy.
Eraldo PaulesuPsychology Department, University of Milan-Bicocca Milan, Italy ; NeuroMI -Milan Center for Neuroscience Milan, Italy ; fMRI Unit, IRCCS Galeazzi Milan, Italy.
Claudio LuzzattiPsychology Department, University of Milan-Bicocca Milan, Italy ; NeuroMI -Milan Center for Neuroscience Milan, Italy.
University of Milano-Bicocca · ITAzienda Socio Sanitaria Territoriale Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda · ITIstituto Ortopedico Galeazzi · ITSan Raffaele University of Rome · ITUniversity of Trento · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

According to the dual-route model, a printed string of letters can be processed by either a grapheme-to-phoneme conversion (GPC) route or a lexical-semantic route. Although meta-analyses of the imaging literature support the existence of distinct but interacting reading procedures, individual neuroimaging studies that explored neural correlates of reading yielded inconclusive results. We used a list-manipulation paradigm to provide a fresh empirical look at this issue and to isolate specific areas that underlie the two reading procedures. In a lexical condition, we embedded disyllabic Italian words (target stimuli) in lists of either loanwords or trisyllabic Italian words with unpredictable stress position. In a GPC condition, similar target stimuli were included within lists of pseudowords. The procedure was designed to induce participants to emphasize either the lexical-semantic or the GPC reading procedure, while controlling for possible linguistic confounds and keeping the reading task requirements stable across the two conditions. Thirty-three adults participated in the behavioral study, and 20 further adult participants were included in the fMRI study. At the behavioral level, we found sizeable effects of the framing manipulations that included slower voice onset times for stimuli in the pseudoword frames. At the functional anatomical level, the occipital and temporal regions, and the intraparietal sulcus were specifically activated when subjects were reading target words in a lexical frame. The inferior parietal and anterior fusiform cortex were specifically activated in the GPC condition. These patterns of activation represented a valid classifying model of fMRI images associated with target reading in both frames in the multi-voxel pattern analyses. Further activations were shared by the two procedures in the occipital and inferior parietal areas, in the premotor cortex, in the frontal regions and the left supplementary motor area. These regions are most likely involved in either early input or late output processes.

Indexed as

dual-route modelfMRIlexical-semantic procedurelist-manipulation paradigmmulti-voxel pattern analysis (MVPA)readingsublexical procedure

Identifiers

PMID26441712
PMCPMC4585139
OpenAlexW2191126232

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.