Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39241019›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2024

Cracking the neural code for word recognition in convolutional neural networks.

Aakash Agrawal, Stanislas Dehaene

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. From retinotopic to ordinal coding: Dissecting the cortical stages of visual word recognition.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Aakash AgrawalCognitive Neuroimaging Unit, CEA, INSERM U 992, Université Paris-Saclay, NeuroSpin center, Gif/Yvette, France.ORCID 0000-0001-8320-4516
Stanislas DehaeneCognitive Neuroimaging Unit, CEA, INSERM U 992, Université Paris-Saclay, NeuroSpin center, Gif/Yvette, France.

Funding

Paris Region fellowship Programme MSCA NO. 945298“TOPLEX” ANR program ANR-20-CE37-0002
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Learning to read places a strong challenge on the visual system. Years of expertise lead to a remarkable capacity to separate similar letters and encode their relative positions, thus distinguishing words such as FORM and FROM, invariantly over a large range of positions, sizes and fonts. How neural circuits achieve invariant word recognition remains unknown. Here, we address this issue by recycling deep neural network models initially trained for image recognition. We retrain them to recognize written words and then analyze how reading-specialized units emerge and operate across the successive layers. With literacy, a small subset of units becomes specialized for word recognition in the learned script, similar to the visual word form area (VWFA) in the human brain. We show that these units are sensitive to specific letter identities and their ordinal position from the left or the right of a word. The transition from retinotopic to ordinal position coding is achieved by a hierarchy of "space bigram" unit that detect the position of a letter relative to a blank space and that pool across low- and high-frequency-sensitive units from early layers of the network. The proposed scheme provides a plausible neural code for written words in the VWFA, and leads to predictions for reading behavior, error patterns, and the neurophysiology of reading.

Indexed as

Neural Networks, ComputerReadingBrainComputational BiologyDeep LearningHumansModels, NeurologicalPattern Recognition, Visual

Identifiers

PMID39241019
PMCPMC11410253

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.