ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2024
Both mOTS-words and pOTS-words prefer emoji stimuli over text stimuli during a reading task.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The visual word form area in the occipitotemporal sulcus (OTS), here referred to as OTS-words, responds more strongly to text than other visual stimuli and is crucial for reading. We hypothesized, that this text preference may be driven by a preference for reading tasks, as in most prior fMRI studies only the text stimuli were readable. Hence, we performed three fMRI experiments (N=15) and systematically varied the participant's task and the stimulus, investigating mOTS-words and pOTS-words subregions. In experiment 1, we contrasted text stimuli with non-readable visual stimuli (faces, limbs, houses, objects). Experiment 2 utilized an fMRI adaptation paradigm, presenting compound words in text or emoji formats. In experiment 3, participants performed a reading or a color task on compound words in text or emoji format. Using experiment 1 data, we identified mOTS-words and pOTS-words by contrasting texts with non-readable stimuli. In experiment 2, pOTS-words, but not mOTS-words, showed fMRI adaptation for compound words in both text and emoji formats. In experiment 3, surprisingly, both subregions showed higher responses to compound words in emoji than text format. Moreover, mOTS-words showed higher responses during the reading than the color task and a task-stimulus interaction. Multivariate analyses revealed that distributed responses in pOTS-words encode the visual stimulus, while responses in mOTS-words encode both stimulus and task. Together, our findings suggest that the function of the OTS-words subregions goes beyond the specific visual processing of text and that these regions are flexibly recruited whenever semantic meaning needs to be assigned to visual input.
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.