Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41189631›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2025

Tracking novel visual word learning via different methods with an original FPVS-EEG approach.

Amaury Barillon, Christine Schiltz, Aliette Lochy

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Amaury BarillonDepartment of Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences, Faculty of Humanities, Social and Educational Sciences, Institute of Cognitive Science and Assessment, University of Luxembourg, Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg.
Christine SchiltzDepartment of Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences, Faculty of Humanities, Social and Educational Sciences, Institute of Cognitive Science and Assessment, University of Luxembourg, Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg.
Aliette LochyDepartment of Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences, Faculty of Humanities, Social and Educational Sciences, Institute of Cognitive Science and Assessment, University of Luxembourg, Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Reading is a crucial human skill and learning novel written word forms is a life-long process. Here, we tracked the emergence of novel word lexical and neural representations after a training procedure, contrasting two learning methods, in 32 monolingual adults. Half of the novel words were provided with orthographic and phonological information (OP), and half with additional explicit semantic information (OPS). At the neural level, we demonstrate for the first time the sensitivity of EEG recordings with fast periodic visual stimulation (FPVS) to track novel visual word learning. We used an oddball paradigm, with base stimuli (pseudowords) displayed at 10 Hz with deviant stimuli (words) every fifth item (at 2 Hz), in which word-selective responses at 2 Hz demonstrate lexical discrimination. While at pre-test, novel words were not discriminated, results show clear word-selective responses over the left occipital-temporal cortex (VOTC) post-learning with both methods. This finding suggests the creation of orthographic representations for novel words and fits with current views that this region is specialized for the rapid recognition and fast learning of novel word forms. Moreover, the behavioral lexical decision data reveal significant increases in reaction times after learning, for novel words' lexical neighbors, which suggests lexical engagement through competition arising from newly formed representation. Contrary to our expectations, no advantage was found for the OPS method. Instead, results show stronger behavioral and neural changes with the OP method. In the discussion, we highlight possible reasons for this unexpected finding. First, the current implementation of the OPS method displaying simultaneous images and words during learning could have dragged the participant's attention away from the orthographic form. Second, the speed of presentation of stimuli might have been too fast to allow fast semantic retrieval. Finally, semantic learning might have a different timeframe than word form learning, and the current findings would reflect only the latter. Our results nevertheless highlight the rapid emergence of new word-form representations, captured by the EEG-FPVS approach.

Indexed as

EEG-FPVSnovel words learningreadingsemanticword representation

Identifiers

PMID41189631
PMCPMC12580203

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.