ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2018
Individual Differences in the Neural and Cognitive Mechanisms of Single Word Reading.
Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Differential weighting of information during aloud and silent reading: Evidence from representational similarity analysis of fMRI data.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Article
- Music literacy shapes the specialization of a right hemispheric word reading area.Neuroimage. Reports · 2024Article
- How trial-to-trial learning shapes mappings in the mental lexicon: Modelling lexical decision with linear discriminative learning.Cognitive psychology · 2023Article
- Dyslexia: Causes and Concomitant Impairments.Brain sciences · 2023Review
- Is Developmental Dyslexia Due to a Visual and Not a Phonological Impairment?Brain sciences · 2021Review
- Educational fMRI: From the Lab to the Classroom.Frontiers in psychology · 2019Review
- Multiple brain activation patterns underlying successful visual short-term memory across the adult lifespan.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Written language is a human invention that our brains did not evolve for. Yet, most research has focused on finding a single theory of reading, identifying the common set of cognitive and neural processes shared across individuals, neglecting individual differences. In contrast, we investigated variation in single word reading. Using a novel statistical method for analyzing heterogeneity in multi-subject task-based functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), we clustered readers based on their brain's response to written stimuli. Separate behavioral testing and neuroimaging analysis shows that these clusters differed in the role of the sublexical pathway in processing written language, but not in reading skill. Taken together, these results suggest that individuals vary in the cognitive and neural mechanisms involved in word reading. In general, neurocognitive theories need to account not only for what tends to be true of the population, but also the types of variation that exist, even within a neurotypical population.
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.