ArticleNeurobiology of language (Cambridge, Mass.)2026
Dissecting the Sublexical Route for Reading: Frontal and Parietal Networks Support Learned Orthography-to-Phonology Mappings.
Article in Neurobiology of language (Cambridge, Mass.), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Meaning for reading pseudowords: errors reveal semantic influences on pseudoword reading after stroke.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- The Georgetown Reading in Aging Neuroimaging Dataset (GRAND): Reading and multimodal MRI data in older adults.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Lesions Reveal Shared and Distinct Neurocognitive Bases of Oral Reading and Silent Word Recognition.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Oral reading relies on lexical and sublexical processes with distinct neural mechanisms. Damage within the sublexical system causes phonological alexia, a blanket diagnosis describing acquired deficits in reading unfamiliar words. Improving the precision of alexia diagnosis requires understanding the neurocognitive basis of specific reading subprocesses. This study investigated the neural correlates of sublexical reading in 64 adults with chronic left-hemisphere stroke (LHS), focusing on lesions that impair the use of learned orthography-to-phonology (OP) mappings to read new words. Participants read aloud real words and three types of pseudowords varying in the number of plausible OP mappings at the level of the orthographic body: zero mappings (0M), one mapping (1M), and multiple mappings (MM). LHS participants exhibited phonological reading deficits with an exaggerated lexicality effect compared to 71 neurotypical controls. Across both groups, pseudowords with learned OP mappings were read more accurately than those without. Voxelwise and connectome-based lesion-symptom mapping revealed that relative lexical reading deficits were associated with lateral temporal lesions, while sublexical reading deficits were associated with lesions or disconnections of the left inferior frontal (IFG), supramarginal, and pre/postcentral gyri. Applying learned OP mappings relied on anterior IFG and frontoparietal connections, while resolving multiple plausible OP mappings relied on intraparietal connections. These results underscore the role of learned mutigraphemic OP mappings in sublexical reading, and demonstrate that disruptions of different sublexical reading subprocesses result in subtly different deficit patterns. Dissecting the neurocognitive basis of reading subprocesses may improve the precision of alexia diagnosis and point to new treatments.
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.