Taylor, JSH;
Rastle, K;
Davis, MH;
(2013)
Can cognitive models explain brain activation during word and pseudoword reading? A meta-analysis of 36 neuroimaging studies.
Psychological Bulletin
, 139
(4)
pp. 766-791.
10.1037/a0030266.
Preview |
Text
bul.Taylor.raw.pdf - Accepted Version Download (1MB) | Preview |
Abstract
[Correction Notice: An Erratum for this article was reported in Vol 139(4) of Psychological Bulletin (see record 2012-29656-001). There is an error in Table 1. The corrected table is included in the erratum.] Reading in many alphabetic writing systems depends on both item-specific knowledge used to read irregular words (sew, yacht) and generative spelling–sound knowledge used to read pseudowords (tew, yash). Research into the neural basis of these abilities has been directed largely by cognitive accounts proposed by the dual-route cascaded and triangle models of reading. We develop a framework that enables predictions for neural activity to be derived from cognitive models of reading using 2 principles: (a) the extent to which a model component or brain region is engaged by a stimulus and (b) how much effort is exerted in processing that stimulus. To evaluate the derived predictions, we conducted a meta-analysis of 36 neuroimaging studies of reading using the quantitative activation likelihood estimation technique. Reliable clusters of activity are localized during word versus pseudoword and irregular versus regular word reading and demonstrate a great deal of convergence between the functional organization of the reading system put forward by cognitive models and the neural systems activated during reading tasks. Specifically, left-hemisphere activation clusters are revealed reflecting orthographic analysis (occipitotemporal cortex), lexical and/or semantic processing (anterior fusiform, middle temporal gyrus), spelling–sound conversion (inferior parietal cortex), and phonological output resolution (inferior frontal gyrus). Our framework and results establish that cognitive models of reading are relevant for interpreting neuroimaging studies and that neuroscientific studies can provide data relevant for advancing cognitive models. This article thus provides a firm empirical foundation from which to improve integration between cognitive and neural accounts of the reading process.
Archive Staff Only
 |
View Item |
