4.7 Article

A Spatiotemporal Map of Reading Aloud

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
卷 42, 期 27, 页码 5438-5450

出版社

SOC NEUROSCIENCE
DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2324-21.2022

关键词

dyslexia; human; intracranial recording; language; reading; speech

资金

  1. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke [NS098981]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Reading words aloud is a fundamental aspect of literacy. The study found that lexicality is encoded earliest in the mid-fusiform cortex and precentral sulcus, while word frequency is first represented in the mid-fusiform cortex and later in the inferior frontal gyrus and inferior parietal sulcus. Orthographic neighborhood sensitivity resides solely in the inferior parietal sulcus.
Reading words aloud is a fundamental aspect of literacy. The rapid rate at which multiple distributed neural substrates are engaged in this process can only be probed via techniques with high spatiotemporal resolution. We probed this with direct intracranial recordings covering most of the left hemisphere in 46 humans (26 male, 20 female) as they read aloud regular, exception and pseudo-words. We used this to create a spatiotemporal map of word processing and to derive how broadband gamma activity varies with multiple word attributes critical to reading speed: lexicality, word frequency, and orthographic neighborhood. We found that lexicality is encoded earliest in mid-fusiform (mFus) cortex, and precentral sulcus, and is represented reliably enough to allow single-trial lexicality decoding. Word frequency is first represented in mFus and later in the inferior frontal gyrus (IFG) and inferior parietal sulcus (IPS), while orthographic neighborhood sensitivity resides solely in IPS. We thus isolate the neural correlates of the distributed reading network involving mFus, IFG, IPS, precentral sulcus, and motor cortex and provide direct evidence for parallel processes via the lexical route from mFus to IFG, and the sublexical route from IPS and precentral sulcus to anterior IFG.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据