ArticleNeurobiology of language (Cambridge, Mass.)2020
Neural Components of Reading Revealed by Distributed and Symbolic Computational Models.
Article in Neurobiology of language (Cambridge, Mass.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Lexical Representations in the Common and Specific Neural Networks for Visual, Phonological, and Semantic Processing in Chinese Reading.Human brain mapping · 2025Article
- Differential weighting of information during aloud and silent reading: Evidence from representational similarity analysis of fMRI data.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Article
- Constraining current neuroanatomical models of reading: the view from Arabic.Brain structure & function · 2024Review
- Stimulus Repetition and Sample Size Considerations in Item-Level Representational Similarity Analysis.Language, cognition and neuroscience · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Determining how the cognitive components of reading - orthographic, phonological, and semantic representations - are instantiated in the brain has been a longstanding goal of psychology and human cognitive neuroscience. The two most prominent computational models of reading instantiate different cognitive processes, implying different neural processes. Artificial neural network (ANN) models of reading posit non-symbolic, distributed representations. The dual-route cascaded (DRC) model instead suggests two routes of processing, one representing symbolic rules of spelling-sound correspondence, the other representing orthographic and phonological lexicons. These models are not adjudicated by behavioral data and have never before been directly compared in terms of neural plausibility. We used representational similarity analysis to compare the predictions of these models to neural data from participants reading aloud. Both the ANN and DRC model representations corresponded with neural activity. However, ANN model representations correlated to more reading-relevant areas of cortex. When contributions from the DRC model were statistically controlled, partial correlations revealed that the ANN model accounted for significant variance in the neural data. The opposite analysis, examining the variance explained by the DRC model with contributions from the ANN model factored out, revealed no correspondence to neural activity. Our results suggest that ANNs trained using distributed representations provide a better correspondence between cognitive and neural coding. Additionally, this framework provides a principled approach for comparing computational models of cognitive function to gain insight into neural representations.
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.