ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2026
Meaning for reading pseudowords: errors reveal semantic influences on pseudoword reading after stroke.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Impaired reading, i.e., alexia, is common after left hemisphere stroke. The most common deficit in alexia is a difficulty reading aloud pronounceable novel words, also called pseudowords. While semantic and phonological processes both subserve reading real words, pseudoword reading deficits in alexia are typically ascribed to phonological deficits alone. Some theories, however, suggest that pseudoword reading relies in part on lexical-semantic knowledge, such that semantic deficits could also contribute to poor pseudoword reading in alexia. Leveraging a large sample of left-hemisphere stroke survivors, we examine the cognitive and neural substrates of pseudoword reading accuracy and two error types: lexicalization errors, where a pseudoword is incorrectly read as a real word, and nonword errors, where a pseudoword is read as an incorrect nonword. 76 left-hemisphere stroke survivors read 60 pseudowords aloud, and performed two pseudoword repetition tasks to assess phonological processing and two picture naming tasks to assess mappings between lexical semantics and phonology. Regression models assessed how pseudoword repetition and naming related to overall accuracy and rates of lexicalization and nonword errors in pseudoword reading. Voxel-based and connectome lesion-symptom mapping localized the neural territory responsible for these errors. Pseudoword repetition and naming independently related to pseudoword reading accuracy. Pseudoword repetition but not naming deficits predicted higher rates of lexicalization errors, while naming but not pseudoword repetition deficits predicted higher rates of nonword errors. Greater nonword error rate also predicted smaller imageability effects in real word reading (
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.