ArticleJournal of cognitive neuroscience2026
Shared and Unique Connectivity Signatures of Reading and Language Deficits.
Article in Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 2026. 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
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
Reading ability depends on multiple cognitive skills, including decoding and language comprehension, which can vary widely across individuals-even among those with similarly low reading performance. To better understand the brain basis of this variability, we used connectome-based predictive modeling (CPM) to identify large-scale functional connectivity patterns associated with reading and language skills in a population-based sample. Cross-sectional CPM models were trained using functional connectivity data from the Adolescent Brain and Cognitive Development study (n = 6894) and tested in two independent cohorts: the New Haven Lexinome Project and the Genes, Reading, and Dyslexia study (combined n = 136). Functional connectivity measures included both resting- and task-based scans. Reading and language were measured with psychometric tests of word reading and vocabulary, respectively. CPM models significantly predicted reading (r = .24) and language (r = .28) scores in the discovery sample and generalized to an external sample (rs = .23 and .19). Anatomically, the reading and language models showed significant overlap, with the medial frontal network emerging as most predictive in both. However, these models exhibited distinct generalization patterns to children with decoding versus language comprehension difficulties-classified using 20th percentile cutoffs-highlighting their neural specificity. Reading and language models included distinct connectivity signatures and generalized differently to children with decoding versus language comprehension difficulties. These findings demonstrate that although reading and language abilities are behaviorally related, they are supported by partially distinct neural architectures. Integrating behavioral and neuroimaging data may clarify specific brain-behavior relationships and inform more tailored interventions for children with reading and language difficulties.
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.