ArticleFrontiers in psychology2022
Functional neuroanatomy of reading in Czech: Evidence of a dual-route processing architecture in a shallow orthography.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Language network disruption in patients with Lewy body diseases.Journal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996) · 2026Article
- Sentence comprehension in Lewy body diseases: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study.Brain communications · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: According to the strong version of the orthographic depth hypothesis, in languages with transparent letter-sound mappings (shallow orthographies) the reading of both familiar words and unfamiliar nonwords may be accomplished by a sublexical pathway that relies on serial grapheme-to-phoneme conversion. However, in languages such as English characterized by inconsistent letter-sound relationships (deep orthographies), word reading is mediated by a lexical-semantic pathway that relies on mappings between word-specific orthographic, semantic, and phonological representations, whereas the sublexical pathway is used primarily to read nonwords. Methods: In this study, we used functional magnetic resonance imaging to elucidate neural substrates of reading in Czech, a language characterized by a shallo worthography. Specifically, we contrasted patterns of brain activation and connectivity during word and nonword reading to determine whether similar or different neural mechanisms are involved. Neural correlates were measured as differences in simple whole-brain voxel-wise activation, and differences in visual word form area (VWFA) task-related connectivity were computed on the group level from data of 24 young subject. Trial-to-trial reading reaction times were used as a measure of task difficulty, and these effects were subtracted from the activation and connectivity effects in order to eliminate difference in cognitive effort which is naturally higher for nonwords and may mask the true lexicality effects. Results: We observed pattern of activity well described in the literature mostly derived from data of English speakers - nonword reading (as compared to word reading) activated the sublexical pathway to a greater extent whereas word reading was associated with greater activation of semantic networks. VWFA connectivity analysis also revealed stronger connectivity to a component of the sublexical pathway - left inferior frontal gyrus (IFG), for nonword compared to word reading. Discussion: These converging results suggest that the brain mechanism of skilled reading in shallow orthography languages are similar to those engaged when reading in languages with a deep orthography and are supported by a universal dual-pathway neural architecture.
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.