ArticlePloS one2018
Large-scale functional networks connect differently for processing words and symbol strings.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Test-retest reliability of MEG functional brain connectivity related to language production: Behavioral, functional, and structural underpinnings of reliable connectivity.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Article
- Exploring the relationship between features calculated from contextual embeddings and EEG band power during sentence reading in Chinese.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2025Article
- Contribution and functional connectivity between cerebrum and cerebellum on sub-lexical and lexical-semantic processing of verbs.PloS one · 2023Article
- Task-Modulated Corticocortical Synchrony in the Cognitive-Motor Network Supporting Handwriting.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2020Article
- Analysis of Functional Connectivity and Oscillatory Power Using DICS: From Raw MEG Data to Group-Level Statistics in Python.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Reconfigurations of synchronized large-scale networks are thought to be central neural mechanisms that support cognition and behavior in the human brain. Magnetoencephalography (MEG) recordings together with recent advances in network analysis now allow for sub-second snapshots of such networks. In the present study, we compared frequency-resolved functional connectivity patterns underlying reading of single words and visual recognition of symbol strings. Word reading emphasized coherence in a left-lateralized network with nodes in classical perisylvian language regions, whereas symbol processing recruited a bilateral network, including connections between frontal and parietal regions previously associated with spatial attention and visual working memory. Our results illustrate the flexible nature of functional networks, whereby processing of different form categories, written words vs. symbol strings, leads to the formation of large-scale functional networks that operate at distinct oscillatory frequencies and incorporate task-relevant regions. These results suggest that category-specific processing should be viewed not so much as a local process but as a distributed neural process implemented in signature networks. For words, increased coherence was detected particularly in the alpha (8-13 Hz) and high gamma (60-90 Hz) frequency bands, whereas increased coherence for symbol strings was observed in the high beta (21-29 Hz) and low gamma (30-45 Hz) frequency range. These findings attest to the role of coherence in specific frequency bands as a general mechanism for integrating stimulus-dependent information across brain regions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.