4.7 Article

Differences in brain functional networks for audiovisual integration during reading between children and adults

期刊

ANNALS OF THE NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
卷 1520, 期 1, 页码 127-139

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/nyas.14943

关键词

audiovisual integration; brain network; development; fMRI; reading

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study used functional magnetic resonance imaging to investigate the brain networks involved in audiovisual integration during reading in children and adults. The results revealed enhanced connectivity in a prefrontal-superior temporal network in adults compared to children, reflecting the development of attentional modulation of audiovisual integration involved in reading processing. Additionally, the strength of this brain network's connectivity was correlated with reading accuracy.
Building robust letter-to-sound correspondences is a prerequisite for developing reading capacity. However, the neural mechanisms underlying the development of audiovisual integration for reading are largely unknown. This study used functional magnetic resonance imaging in a lexical decision task to investigate functional brain networks that support audiovisual integration during reading in developing child readers (10-12 years old) and skilled adult readers (20-28 years old). The results revealed enhanced connectivity in a prefrontal-superior temporal network (including the right medial frontal gyrus, right superior frontal gyrus, and left superior temporal gyrus) in adults relative to children, reflecting the development of attentional modulation of audiovisual integration involved in reading processing. Furthermore, the connectivity strength of this brain network was correlated with reading accuracy. Collectively, this study, for the first time, elucidates the differences in brain networks of audiovisual integration for reading between children and adults, promoting the understanding of the neurodevelopment of multisensory integration in high-level human cognition.

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