ArticleeLife2025
Convolutional networks can model the functional modulation of the MEG responses associated with feed-forward processes during visual word recognition.
Article in eLife, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Traditional models of reading lack a realistic simulation of the early visual processing stages, taking input in the form of letter banks and predefined line segments, making them unsuitable for modeling early brain responses. We used variations of the VGG-11 convolutional neural network (CNN) to create models of visual word recognition that starts from the pixel-level and performs the macro-scale computations needed for the detection and segmentation of letter shapes to word-form identification of large vocabulary of 10k Finnish words, regardless of letter size, shape, or rotation. The models were evaluated based on an existing magnetoencephalography (MEG) study where participants viewed regular words, pseudowords, noise-embedded words, symbol strings, and consonant strings. The original images used in the study were presented to the models and the activity in the layers was compared to MEG evoked response amplitudes. Through a few alterations to make the network more biologically plausible, we found an CNN architecture that can correctly simulate the behavior of three prominent responses, namely the type I (early visual response), type II (the 'letter string' response), and the N400m. In conclusion, starting a model of reading with convolution-and-pooling steps enables the flexibility and realism crucial for a direct model-to-brain comparison.
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.