Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
    • Special Collections
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
    • Editorial Board
    • ECR Advisory Board
    • Journal Staff
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
    • Accessibility
  • SUBSCRIBE

User menu

  • Log out
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Neuroscience
  • Log out
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Neuroscience

Advanced Search

Submit a Manuscript
  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
    • Special Collections
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
    • Editorial Board
    • ECR Advisory Board
    • Journal Staff
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
    • Accessibility
  • SUBSCRIBE
PreviousNext
Research Articles, Behavioral/Cognitive

A Spatiotemporal Map of Reading Aloud

Oscar Woolnough, Cristian Donos, Aidan Curtis, Patrick S. Rollo, Zachary J. Roccaforte, Stanislas Dehaene, Simon Fischer-Baum and Nitin Tandon
Journal of Neuroscience 6 July 2022, 42 (27) 5438-5450; https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2324-21.2022
Oscar Woolnough
1Vivian L. Smith Department of Neurosurgery, McGovern Medical School at UT Health Houston, Houston, Texas 77030
2Texas Institute for Restorative Neurotechnologies, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas 77030
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Oscar Woolnough
Cristian Donos
1Vivian L. Smith Department of Neurosurgery, McGovern Medical School at UT Health Houston, Houston, Texas 77030
3Faculty of Physics, University of Bucharest, Bucharest, 050663, Romania
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Aidan Curtis
1Vivian L. Smith Department of Neurosurgery, McGovern Medical School at UT Health Houston, Houston, Texas 77030
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Patrick S. Rollo
1Vivian L. Smith Department of Neurosurgery, McGovern Medical School at UT Health Houston, Houston, Texas 77030
2Texas Institute for Restorative Neurotechnologies, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas 77030
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Zachary J. Roccaforte
1Vivian L. Smith Department of Neurosurgery, McGovern Medical School at UT Health Houston, Houston, Texas 77030
2Texas Institute for Restorative Neurotechnologies, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas 77030
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Zachary J. Roccaforte
Stanislas Dehaene
4Cognitive Neuroimaging Unit CEA, Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale, NeuroSpin Center, Université Paris-Sud and Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, 91191, France
5Collège de France, Paris, 75005, France
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Simon Fischer-Baum
6Department of Psychological Sciences, Rice University, Houston, Texas 77005
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nitin Tandon
1Vivian L. Smith Department of Neurosurgery, McGovern Medical School at UT Health Houston, Houston, Texas 77030
2Texas Institute for Restorative Neurotechnologies, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas 77030
7Memorial Hermann Hospital, Texas Medical Center, Houston, Texas 77030
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Nitin Tandon
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

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 γ 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.

SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Reading aloud depends on multiple complex cerebral computations: mapping from a written letter string on a page to a sequence of spoken sound representations. Here, we used direct intracranial recordings in a large cohort while they read aloud known and novel words, to track, across space and time, the progression of neural representations of behaviorally relevant factors that govern reading speed. We find, concordant with cognitive models of reading, that known and novel words are differentially processed through a lexical route, sensitive to frequency of occurrence of known words in natural language, and a sublexical route, performing letter-by-letter construction of novel words.

  • dyslexia
  • human
  • intracranial recording
  • language
  • reading
  • speech

Introduction

Reading a word aloud depends on multiple complex cerebral computations: mapping the visual input of a letter string to an internal sequence of sound representations, and then their expression through orofacial motor articulations. Models of how this mapping occurs have postulated a dual-route architecture (Coltheart et al., 2001; Perry et al., 2007, 2010, 2019; Taylor et al., 2013), with a lexico-semantic route for rapidly reading known words and a sublexical route for constructing phonology of novel words. Contrasts between phonological exception words and pseudowords (Fiebach et al., 2002; Shim et al., 2012; Taylor et al., 2013; Sebastian et al., 2014) are often used to maximally separate these two routes. Exception words contain irregular grapheme-phoneme associations (e.g., yacht, sew), and their pronunciations must therefore be retrieved from internal lexical representations, as they cannot be accurately constructed de novo. In contrast, pseudowords have no stored representations, and their phonology must be constructed rather than retrieved. Finally, regular words may be read correctly by either route, with the relative speeds of the routes depending on the level of automatization of reading as well as the size of the reader's vocabulary.

At the brain level, the two routes are thought to share an initial stage of visual word form processing in left occipitotemporal cortex (Dehaene and Cohen, 2011), with only small topological changes depending on whether the task favors lexical or phonological processing (Bouhali et al., 2019). More anteriorly, ventral temporal cortex is strongly implicated as mediating the lexical route, with mid-fusiform cortex (mFus) likely functioning as the orthographic lexicon, a region where familiar letter strings are mapped onto known words (Nobre et al., 1994; Kronbichler et al., 2004; Glezer et al., 2015; Hirshorn et al., 2016; Lochy et al., 2018; White et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2021; Woolnough et al., 2021, 2022). mFus is sensitive to lexicality and word frequency (Kronbichler et al., 2004; White et al., 2019; Woolnough et al., 2021), and its activity is modulated by visual word learning (Taylor et al., 2014a; Glezer et al., 2015). Conversely, the sublexical route, essential for articulating novel words, is thought to engage the inferior parietal lobe (IPL). The dysfunction of subregions of the IPL is associated with specific forms of reading deficits, most prominently impairing pseudoword reading (Temple et al., 2003; Raschle et al., 2011; Rapp et al., 2016; Dickens et al., 2019; Tomasino et al., 2020), in addition to broader phonological and semantic deficits (Binder et al., 2009; Hula et al., 2020; Numssen et al., 2021). The two routes of reading are presumed to be active in parallel (Simos et al., 2002) and converge in the inferior frontal gyrus (IFG) (Taylor et al., 2013).

Cognitive models of reading result in predictions for the overlap or separation between the regions activated by different word classes at each stage of processing. For example, the orthographic lexicon is predicted to be sensitive to word frequency, whereas the phoneme system is predicted to be sensitive to both lexicality and phonological regularity (Taylor et al., 2013). The theoretical embedding of the routes of reading in neural architecture has primarily been derived from lesion data and fMRI (Jobard et al., 2003; Ripamonti et al., 2014; Bouhali et al., 2019; Tomasino et al., 2020), but these modalities lack the spatiotemporal resolution to delineate the dynamics of these networks and their real-time interactions that allow us to rapidly read. For example, is word recognition primarily a serial, feedforward process, or can lexical effects also propagate in a top-down manner all the way back to visual cortices (Carreiras et al., 2014; Woolnough et al., 2021)? To attain the high temporal resolution needed to resolve such issues, we used intracranial recordings in a large cohort of patients (46 patients, 3846 electrodes), with medically intractable epilepsy, while they read aloud known and novel words, creating a comprehensive 4D map of the spatiotemporal dynamics of behaviorally important lexical and sublexical processes throughout the reading system.

Materials and Methods

Data and code availability

The raw datasets generated from this research are not publicly available due to their containing information noncompliant with HIPAA, and the human participants from whom the data were collected have not consented to their public release. We have released summary statistics at https://osf.io/e6zd9/.

Participants

Forty-six patients (26 male, 19-60 years, 5 left-handed, IQ 94 ± 14, age of epilepsy onset 18 ± 10 years) participated in the experiments after giving written informed consent. All participants were semi-chronically implanted with intracranial electrodes for seizure localization of pharmaco-resistant epilepsy. Participants were excluded if they had confirmed right-hemisphere language dominance or a significant additional neurologic history (e.g., previous resections, MRI abnormalities such as malformations or hypoplasia). One additional participant was tested but excluded from analysis as their response times (RTs) were considered outliers for all tested word classes. All experimental procedures were reviewed and approved by the Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects of the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston as Protocol #HSC-MS-06-0385.

Electrode implantation and data recording

Data were acquired from either subdural grid electrodes (SDEs; 4 patients) or stereotactically placed depth electrodes (sEEGs; 42 patients). SDEs were subdural platinum-iridium electrodes embedded in a silicone elastomer sheet (PMT; top-hat design; 3-mm-diameter cortical contact), and were surgically implanted via a craniotomy (Tandon, 2012; Pieters et al., 2013; Tong et al., 2020). sEEGs were implanted using a Robotic Surgical Assistant (Medtech) (Tandon et al., 2019; Rollo et al., 2020). Each sEEG probe (PMT) was 0.8 mm in diameter and had 8-16 electrode contacts. Each contact was a platinum-iridium cylinder, 2.0 mm in length and separated from the adjacent contact by 1.5-2.43 mm. Each patient had 12-20 such probes implanted. Following surgical implantation, electrodes were localized by coregistration of preoperative anatomic 3T MRI and postoperative CT scans in AFNI (Cox, 1996). Electrode positions were projected onto a cortical surface model generated in FreeSurfer (Dale et al., 1999), and displayed on the cortical surface model for visualization (Pieters et al., 2013). Intracranial data were collected during research experiments starting on the first day after electrode implantation for sEEGs and 2 d after implantation for SDEs. Data were digitized at 2 kHz using the NeuroPort recording system (Blackrock Microsystems), imported into MATLAB, initially referenced to the white matter channel used as a reference for the clinical acquisition system, and visually inspected for line noise, artifacts, and epileptic activity. Electrodes with excessive line noise or localized to sites of seizure onset were excluded. Each electrode was rereferenced to the common average of the remaining channels. Trials contaminated by interictal epileptic spikes were discarded.

Stimuli and experimental design

All patients undertook a task reading aloud single words and pseudowords. Stimuli were presented on a 2880 × 1800 pixel, 15.4 inch LCD screen positioned at eye-level, 2-3 feet from the patient. Participants were presented with 80 each of monosyllabic (1) phonologically regular words, (2) phonologically irregular exception words, and (3) novel pseudowords and asked to read them aloud. Stimuli were presented using Psychophysics Toolbox (Kleiner et al., 2007) in MATLAB, in all lowercase letters, in Arial font with a height of 150 pixels (∼2.2° visual angle). Each stimulus was displayed for 1500 ms with an interstimulus interval of 2000 ms. Stimuli were presented in two recording sessions, each containing presentation of 120 stimuli in a pseudorandom order with no repeats.

Signal analysis

Analyses were performed by first bandpass filtering raw data of each electrode into broadband γ activity (BGA; 70-150 Hz) following removal of line noise (zero-phase second order Butterworth bandstop filters). A frequency domain bandpass Hilbert transform (paired sigmoid flanks with half-width 1.5 Hz) was applied, and the analytic amplitude was smoothed (Savitzky-Golay finite impulse response, third order, frame length of 201 ms). BGA is presented here as percentage change from baseline level, defined as the period −500 to −100 ms before each word presentation.

Electrodes were tested to see whether they were responsive during the task. Responsiveness was defined as displaying >20% average BGA over baseline for at least one of the three following windows: 100-500 ms following stimulus onset, −500 to −100 ms before articulation onset, or 100-500 ms following articulation onset. Of the 3846 useable electrodes, 1248 electrodes were designated responsive based on these criteria.

ROIs were selected in canonical language areas, areas identified in previous intracranial studies of reading (Hirshorn et al., 2016; Lochy et al., 2018; Woolnough et al., 2019, 2021), and areas of high peak activation in the word-type independent mixed-effects, multilevel analysis (MEMA) movie. ROI centers were defined on the cortical surface, and all responsive electrodes within a set geodesic radius of this point were included (Kadipasaoglu et al., 2015). This method was selected as currently available cortical surface parcellations have been shown to be inadequate at predicting functional boundaries of task-evoked activity (Zhi et al., 2021). An exception was made for the superior temporal gyrus (STG) ROI, which was defined using a Human Connectome Project derived parcellation (A1, A4, PBelt, MBelt, LBelt) (Glasser et al., 2016). Centers of mass for each of the left hemispheric ROIs, in Talairach space, were as follows: lateral occipitotemporal cortex (LOT), −41, −61, −13; mFus, −31, −36, −18; inferior parietal sulcus (IPS), −28, −62, 34; precentral sulcus (pCS), −37, 0, 39; posterior inferior frontal gyrus (pIFG), −42, 17, 26; anterior IFG (aIFG), −39, 37, 15; frontal operculum (FO), −35, 17, 9; ventral motor cortex (vMC), −56, −10, 21; supramarginal gyrus (SMG), −37, −29, 35; supplementary motor area (SMA), −5, −3, 46; posterior insula (PI), −36, −14, 10; STG, −53, −20, 5.

For ROI-based analyses, we averaged the BGA responses of all responsive electrodes within-ROI, within-patient before calculating the across-patient mean. This method minimizes bias related to between-patient variations in electrode coverage within each ROI. Frequentist statistical methods were corrected for multiple comparisons using a Benjamini–Hochberg false detection rate threshold of q < 0.05.

Neural decoding

Decoding analyses were performed using logistic regression classifiers, using fivefold cross validation, implemented within MNE-Python (Gramfort, 2013; Gramfort et al., 2014). For each patient, decoding performance was summarized with an area under the curve and a set of classifier weights for each electrode. Temporal decoding was performed on BGA using a sliding estimator at each time point, using all available electrodes. Spatial distribution of classifier weights was reconstructed by a cortical surface transform onto a standardized brain surface using each electrode's presumed “recording zone,” an exponentially decaying geodesic radius (Kadipasaoglu et al., 2014; McCarty et al., 2022). Cortical surface maps were amplitude normalized within patient, then averaged across patient to create a population weighting map.

Linguistic analysis

We quantified word frequency as the base-10 log of the SUBTLEXus frequency (Brysbaert and New, 2009). This resulted in a frequency of 1 meaning 10 instances per million words and 4 meaning 10,000 instances per million words. There was no significant difference between word frequency of regular (1.5 ± 0.35; mean ± SD) and exception (1.7 ± 1.0) words (Wilcoxon rank sum, p = 0.36). Positional letter frequency was calculated as the base-10 log of the sum of the SUBTLEXus frequencies of all words with a given letter in a specific ordinal position. Orthographic neighborhood was quantified as the orthographic Levenshtein distance (OLD20); the mean number of single character edits required to convert the word into its 20 nearest neighbors with a log frequency >0 (Yarkoni et al., 2008). Phonological neighborhood densities were obtained from the Irvine Phonotactic Online Dictionary (Vaden et al., 2009). Pseudowords were phonemically transcribed using the most common pronunciation.

Results

Participants read aloud phonologically regular words, exception words, and novel pseudowords (Fig. 1A) while concurrent recordings were performed using 3846 separate intracranial electrodes placed for the localization of intractable epilepsy (Fig. 1B,C). Forty-two participants had depth recordings using sEEGs and 4 had SDEs.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Experimental design and electrode coverage. A, Schematic representation of the reading task. B, Representative coverage map (46 patients) and (C) individual electrode locations (3846 electrodes) for the left hemisphere, highlighting responsive electrodes (1248 electrodes; >20% activation above baseline).

Behavioral analysis

Mean (±SD) RTs were as follows: regular words (734 ± 113 ms), exception words (738 ± 113 ms), and pseudowords (911 ± 162 ms) (Fig. 2A). Regular and exception words showed no difference in RT (Wilcoxon sign rank, p = 0.90; ln(Bayes Factor (BF10)) = −1.6), although pseudoword RT was slower than for exception words (p < 10−8, ln(BF10) = 32); 95 ± 4% of trials were correctly articulated. The most common errors were regularization of exception words (e.g., sew as sue, soot as sute) or lexicalization of pseudowords (e.g., shret as shirt, jinje as jingle). Error trials were excluded from analysis.

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

Population word RTs. A, RT distribution for each of the three word classes, averaged within participant. B, Sorted mean (±SE) RTs for each item within the three word classes, averaged across participants, highlighting some exemplar words.

To determine the word features that modulate RT, we performed linear mixed effects (LME) and BF analyses on each word class with fixed effects modeling linguistic factors commonly linked to word identification and articulation (Table 1). Regular and exception word RTs showed greatest modulation by word frequency. Exception words also displayed modulation by orthographic neighborhood, and we observed a significant interaction between regularity and orthographic neighborhood (LME: t(6589) = −4.2, β = −62.5, p < 10−4, 95% CI −91.7 to −33.3). Pseudoword RT was most strongly associated with orthographic neighborhood, meaning pseudowords with many known word neighbors were articulated faster.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Statistical modeling of RTa

Spatiotemporal mapping of single word reading

We used an MEMA of BGA (70-150 Hz) in group surface normalized space to create a population-level map of cortical activation across the population. This analysis is specifically designed to account for sampling variations and to minimize effects of outliers (Fischl et al., 1999; Argall et al., 2006; Saad and Reynolds, 2012; Esposito et al., 2013; Conner et al., 2014; Kadipasaoglu et al., 2014). All correctly articulated trials were used. A 4D representation of activation on the cortical surface was generated by collating MEMA on short, overlapping time windows (150 ms width, 10 ms spacing) to generate successive images of cortical activity, time-locked to stimulus onset (Movie 1; Fig. 3A) or the onset of articulation (Movie 2). The spatial distribution of activations was highly consistent across word classes (Fig. 4).

Figure 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 3.

Spatiotemporal profile of cortical activations. A, Collapsed articulation-locked activation movie (Movie 2) highlighting the amplitude of peak BGA. B, Representative ROIs in 12 anatomically and functionally distinct regions, showing all responsive electrodes. C, Mean activation during word reading of each ROI, averaged within patient, time-locked to stimulus onset (left) and articulation onset (right). SEs omitted for visual clarity. Colored bars represent regions of activation greater than baseline (Wilcoxon signed-rank, q < 0.05).

Figure 4.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 4.

Conjunction map of word class activations. MEMA conjunction maps showing overlap of binarized activation maps of each of the three word classes tested (%BGA > 5%, t > 2.58, patients ≥ 3), over three time windows locked to stimulus onset. Across all time windows, all three word classes demonstrate a gross overlap of activation (white). In the later time window, areas associated with postarticulatory processes (e.g., auditory cortex) show selective activation for known words, reflecting differences in RT between known words and novel pseudowords. Regions in black did not have consistent coverage for reliable MEMA results.

Movie 1.

Spread of stimulus-locked activity across the cortical surface. MEMA movie of the time course of BGA across the cortical surface with trials time-locked to onset of the visual stimulus. Regions in black did not have consistent coverage for reliable MEMA results.

Movie 2.

Spread of articulation-locked activity across the cortical surface. MEMA movie of the time course of BGA across the cortical surface with trials time-locked to the onset of articulation. Regions in black did not have consistent coverage for reliable MEMA results.

By collapsing across these frames, we visualized peak activations at each point on the cortical surface (Fig. 3A). Further, to create a more focused visualization of the spatiotemporal progression across reading-sensitive cortex, we selected ROIs at sites with maximal activation that also corresponded to sites believed to be important for written word processing, speech production, and speech monitoring (Fig. 3B,C).

Spatiotemporal representation of lexical factors

To distinguish activity patterns across word classes, we contrasted grouped γ power activations between exception versus pseudowords (lexicality) and exception versus regular words (regularity), using whole-brain MEMAs. The lexicality contrasts demonstrated clusters in early visual cortex, mFus, pCS, IPS, and aIFG (Fig. 5A). The regularity contrast only demonstrated a small cluster in pCS (Fig. 5B).

Figure 5.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 5.

Contrasting word classes. A, B, MEMA contrasts of (A) exception versus pseudoword, and (B) exception versus regular, revealing regions of significantly different mean BGA between conditions (p < 0.01 corrected) within each time window. Regions in black did not have consistent coverage for reliable MEMA results. C, Decoding accuracies of the logistic regression decoders trained to distinguish exception word versus pseudoword trials (left) and exception word versus regular word trials (right). Gray lines indicate individual patient decoding accuracies. Colored line indicates median accuracy. Colored bars represent time periods significantly greater than chance (Wilcoxon signed-rank, q < 0.05). D, Cortical surface representation of population average electrode weightings of the exception versus pseudoword decoder between 300 and 500 ms.

To distinguish whole-brain activity patterns for each of these factors, within-individuals at a single-trial level, we used a logistic regression decoder. Decoders trained to distinguish between exception word and pseudoword trials demonstrated high decoding accuracy (Peak median accuracy: 63%), with 5 patients showing >80% decoding accuracy (peak individual accuracy: 85%) (Fig. 5C). These lexicality decoders displayed high electrode weightings in the same regions as the lexicality contrasts listed above with the addition of the superior frontal sulcus and the ventral visual stream; thus, an independent analysis corroborates the critical role of the LOT, mFus, pCS, IPS, and aIFG in lexicality processing (Fig. 5D). Decoders trained to distinguish exception and regular words did not show significantly greater decoding accuracy than in the baseline period.

To characterize the timing of lexicality distinctions between known words (regular and exception) and novel pseudowords broadly across ROIs (Fig. 6A,B), we compared their activity by word class. Lexicality distinctions were observed earliest in mFus and subsequently in IFG and IPS, with stronger activity for pseudowords in all cases. Distinctions were also observed in the opposite direction in postarticulatory auditory regions (PI and STG). In those areas, the faster RT for known words compared with novel words led to an earlier activation for known words as the patients heard themselves earlier.

Figure 6.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 6.

Spatiotemporal activation profiles of known and novel words. A, Mean activation (±SE) for each word class, within each ROI, during word reading, averaged within patient, time-locked to stimulus onset. Number of electrodes and patients, per ROI, is indicated. Colored bars represent regions of significant difference from exception words (Wilcoxon signed-rank, p < 0.05 for >100 ms). B, Mean activation per unique word, within each ROI. Trials separated by word class and sorted by the word's mean RT for the patients included within the given ROI. Mean RT for each word is highlighted. C, Latency of first onset of activation (first derivative of BGA >3.5 SD above baseline) for each electrode within each ROI. D, E, Network representations demonstrating maximum likelihood latency differences between ROIs, within patients with simultaneous coverage, for (D) initial activation latency and (E) initial lexicality distinction latency (first derivative of pseudowords, known words >3.5 SD above baseline). Lines excluded for ROI pairs where there was no simultaneous coverage of significant electrodes. Arrowheads not shown for differences <10 ms.

As all the previous analyses had demonstrated minimal differences between exception and regular words within the ROIs tested, from this point, we combined responses across all known words to increase power in these more fine-grained analyses.

The activation evoked by words initially spread anteriorly across ventral temporal cortex before progressing to parietal and frontal cortices (Fig. 6C; Movie 1). Within patients who had simultaneous electrode coverage within multiple ROIs, we compared the onset latencies for activation relative to the prestimulus baseline, combining across all word classes (Fig. 6D), versus for the lexicality distinction (Fig. 6E). This analysis demonstrated a spread of the activation from LOT to mFus and IPS before spreading to pIFG, then aIFG. In contrast, the earliest lexicality distinctions were observed in mFus, with a subsequent spread backward to LOT (Fig. 7) and forward to aIFG. None of the individual tested pIFG electrodes showed a significant lexicality distinction.

Figure 7.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 7.

Anterior-to-posterior spread of lexicality in ventral temporal cortex. A, Ventral temporal ROI electrodes on an N27 pial surface. B, Mean activation (±SE) for known words (regular and exception) and pseudowords, within each ROI, during word reading, averaged within patient, time-locked to stimulus onset. Number of electrodes and patients, per ROI, is indicated. Colored bars represent regions of a significant effect of lexicality (LME, q < 0.05, effects of word length regressed out). EVC, Early visual cortex (Talairach center of mass −17, −81, −15).

For the six ROIs that showed a clear prearticulatory peak in activation, we analyzed their activity for sensitivity to the main drivers of RT seen in the behavioral analysis: lexicality, word frequency of known words, and orthographic neighborhood for pseudowords. mFus showed the earliest sensitivity to lexicality, followed by LOT and pCS, and then broad sensitivity across multiple regions (Fig. 8A). All these regions demonstrated greater activity for pseudowords over known words. mFus showed an early and long-lasting word frequency sensitivity, with IPS and aIFG becoming sensitive later (500-700 ms). Frequency sensitivity manifested as greater activation for low-frequency words. Sensitivity to orthographic neighborhood of pseudowords was only seen in IPS (500-700 ms), with pseudowords that had fewer close neighbors showing greater activity. In the right hemisphere, we observed effects of lexicality only in LOT and IPS (with no involvement of right mFus) and no effect of word frequency or orthographic neighborhood. (Fig. 9).

Figure 8.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 8.

Regression of lexical factors. A, BF analysis of lexicality, word frequency, and orthographic neighborhood effects in the six prearticulatory ROIs, for three time windows. BF analysis was used here because of the variability in coverage between ROIs. Frequentist methods can lack statistical significance either because of a lack of effect or lack of power. BF analysis allowed us to disambiguate and show the strength of evidence for or against the presence of an effect. Lexicality tested all known words against pseudowords. Word frequency was regressed across all known words. Orthographic neighborhood was regressed across all pseudowords. ln(BF10) shown for each contrast, and values >2.3 are highlighted. B, C, LME model regression of (B) word frequency in known words and (C) orthographic neighborhood in pseudowords, in three ROIs (β ± SE; mFus, 62 electrodes, 21 patients; IPS, 21 electrodes, 9 patients; aIFG, 35 electrodes, 9 patients). Colored bars represent regions of significance (q < 0.05).

Figure 9.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 9.

Spatiotemporal activation profiles in right hemisphere. A, Right hemisphere analogs of the main analysis ROIs, highlighting all 588 responsive electrodes (of 1712 implanted in right hemisphere). B, Mean activation (±SE) for each word class, within each ROI, during word reading, averaged within patient, time-locked to stimulus onset. Number of electrodes and patients, per ROI, is indicated. Colored bars represent regions of significant difference from exception words (Wilcoxon signed-rank, p < 0.05 for >100 ms). C, BF analysis of lexicality, word frequency, and orthographic neighborhood effects in the four prearticulatory ROIs, for three time windows. Lexicality tested all known words against pseudowords. Word frequency was regressed across all known words. Orthographic neighborhood was regressed across all pseudowords. ln(BF10) shown for each contrast and values >2.3 are highlighted. Centers of mass for each of the right hemispheric ROIs, in Talairach space, were as follows: LOT, 32, −61, −15; mFus, 39, −33, −21; IPS, 30, −57, 43; aIFG, 43, 30, 9; vMC, 50, −14, 32; SMG, 36, −30, 39; SMA, 5, −9, 48; PI, 38, −16, 12; STG, 56, −31, −4.

For the three regions with evidence of word frequency or orthographic neighborhood effects (mFus, IPS, and aIFG), we generated LME models at a higher time resolution. Sensitivity to word frequency was observed earliest in mFus (200 ms) followed by IPS and aIFG (425 ms) (Fig. 8B). In IPS, we observed a period of elevated orthographic neighborhood sensitivity, but this did not show significance at this time resolution (Fig. 8C). Evidence from fMRI suggests differential reading-related function within medial and lateral aspects of fusiform cortex (Bouhali et al., 2019; Nordt et al., 2021; Rosenke et al., 2021), but we found no strong evidence of topographic differences in degree of activation or sensitivity to word frequency across the medial-to-lateral extent of mFus (Fig. 10).

Figure 10.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 10.

Functional topography of mFus. A, Ventral view of the pial surface, highlighting the medial (green) and lateral (pink) mFus sub-ROIs. B, Mean (±SE) BGA within each sub-ROI. Number of electrodes and patients, per sub-ROI, is indicated. C, β ± SE of the LME-derived effect of word frequency for each sub-ROI. Colored bars represent regions of significance (q < 0.05).

Discussion

This work comprehensively maps the spatiotemporal spread of cortical activation across the left hemisphere during word reading to derive the dynamics of cortical networks underlying literacy, using intracranial recordings in a large population. We find two regions demonstrating early selectivity to lexicality-mFus and pCS, with subsequent engagement of the IPS and IFG. This lexicality network is broadly comparable with the spatial substrates derived from fMRI (Heim et al., 2013; Taylor et al., 2013, 2014b), with an added benefit of millisecond temporal resolution. Lexicality-sensitive regions display maximal distinction between known words versus pseudowords 300-500 ms after stimulus onset, in a manner reliable enough to enable above-chance single-trial decoding of lexicality.

Three of the most prominent cognitive models of reading are the DRC (Coltheart et al., 2001), CDP+ (Perry et al., 2007, 2010, 2019), and Triangle (Seidenberg and McClelland, 1989), models that each result in predictions for the overlap or separation between the activation induced by different word classes at each stage of processing (Taylor et al., 2013). These models are designed to simulate human behavioral performance rather than neural activity but allow a theoretical decomposition of reading into multiple cognitive stages that may correlate with neural computations. Concordant with all three cognitive models and with previous lesion data, we find evidence of two parallel pathways: (1) a lexical route via mFus to aIFG that shows sensitivity to word frequency, with greater activity for low-frequency words, as predicted by the DRC and CDP+ models; and (2) a sublexical route, via IPS and pCS, that shows sensitivity to lexicality, with greater activity for pseudowords, as predicted by all three models, and sensitivity to orthographic neighborhood of pseudowords observed in IPS.

We also observed a greater activation induced by pseudowords relative to known words in all our ROIs. This observation diverges from the predictions of all three models, which predict that regions associated with the orthographic lexicon and semantic processing should display greater engagement for words than for pseudowords (Taylor et al., 2013). We have previously documented a task-based inversion of lexical selectivity within mFus, with words > pseudowords while passively viewing but pseudowords > words when actively reading (Woolnough et al., 2021). IPS has previously been implicated in providing top-down modulation of ventral temporal responses, enhancing representation of task-relevant features (Kayser et al., 2010; Kay and Yeatman, 2017). This suggests that resources used by the lexical route for pseudowords are dependent on the specific type of pseudoword processing required by a given task and may be influenced by the extent of engagement of the sublexical route, a task-dependency that is presently not captured by any of the dominant models.

We did not observe a reliable distinction between regular and exception word activations. However, the lack of effect could be because of the present stimulus set being comprised of short, monosyllabic words, as cognitive models would suggest that any differences may be more apparent when using longer, low-frequency words with irregularities early in the word (Rastle and Coltheart, 1999).

We have previously demonstrated that mFus is the earliest region in ventral temporal cortex to show sensitivity to word frequency while reading (Woolnough et al., 2021). It is often assumed that sensitivities to statistical properties of language, such as word frequency, seen in ventral temporal cortex, arise solely from a top-down modulation from IFG (Price and Devlin, 2011; Heim et al., 2013; Carreiras et al., 2014; Woodhead et al., 2014; Whaley et al., 2016; Liu et al., 2021). Here, we demonstrate again the primacy of mFus in coding both word frequency and lexicality: its sensitivity precedes the emergence of lexicality effects, both posteriorly in occipitotemporal and early visual cortices and anteriorly in aIFG and IPS, where these effects start ∼200 ms later. These findings suggest that the directional connectivity metrics derived in earlier studies may not necessarily detect the transmission of orthographic lexical information, but perhaps higher-order semantic or phonological information. Additionally, we observe that right LOT demonstrates lexical sensitivity at a comparable time to left LOT, subsequent to the lexicality distinction in left mFus. This likely indicates that left mFus provides top-down influences to both ipsilateral and contralateral visual areas. These results fit with the putative role of mFus as the locus of the orthographic lexicon, organized based on statistical regularities of individual words in natural language (Woolnough et al., 2021). Additionally, there is evidence of multimodal semantic processing within the vicinity of mFus (Forseth et al., 2018; Binder et al., 2020). It is possible that these functions are spatially dissociable as there is separation within mFus, within individuals, between cortical stimulation sites that lead to reading specific deficits and those that result in more general semantic deficits (Mani et al., 2008; Hirshorn et al., 2016; Woolnough et al., 2021). Future research should clarify whether orthographic and multimodal effects occur at the same mFus sites within individuals, thus determining whether this area may already implement abstract lexical semantics, or whether a purely orthographic stage of lexical processing can be isolated in mFus.

The IPS was the only region with sensitivity to the orthographic neighborhood of novel pseudowords. IPS has previously been implicated in the grapheme-phoneme conversion process (Dehaene-Lambertz et al., 2018; Xu et al., 2020). Given that IPS shows both word frequency and lexicality sensitivity, its role in sublexical processing might appear to be questionable. However, it should be remembered that both routes are thought to activate in parallel and compete for speed (Simos et al., 2002). For known words of high enough frequency, the lexical route is faster and more accurate than the sublexical route; thus, once a letter string is identified as a known lexical object, sublexical processes are no longer required (unless the word is visually degraded, thus promoting a return to slow left-to-right analysis) (Vinckier et al., 2006; Cohen et al., 2008). Given that the speed of lexical identification varies with word frequency, the timing of the cessation of sublexical processes should also be frequency dependent. This interpretation is entirely consistent with our data as IPS shows more sustained activity, but not higher peak activity for pseudowords compared with words. We also observed lexicality effects in right IPS, consistent with TMS studies demonstrating the importance of right, nondominant parietal cortex in phonological (Hartwigsen et al., 2010) and visuospatial processing (Cazzoli et al., 2015) during reading.

It is theorized that pCS is involved in articulatory phonological processing, specifically feedforward control of articulator velocity (Tourville and Guenther, 2011; Matchin and Hickok, 2020). Through lesion studies, pCS has also been linked to phonological dyslexia (Rapcsak et al., 2009; Tomasino et al., 2020). Our data demonstrate that pCS activation begins early, preceding the IFG, suggesting a role in early linguistic or phonological processing, as part of the sublexical route. This is concordant with recent findings suggesting that pCS is involved in the grapheme-to-phoneme conversion process (Kaestner et al., 2021). pCS demonstrates lexical sensitivity but no effect of word frequency or orthographic neighborhood. Given the association of pCS with articulation phonology and phonological dyslexia, pCS may contribute to the process of constructing articulatory representations for both words and pseudowords, likely in a manner distinct from the processing in IPS.

This study provides further evidence that medial frontal operculum is involved in prearticulatory, preparatory processes, distinct from those of the lateral IFG (Mălîia et al., 2018; Woolnough et al., 2019). Lesions involving this region have been linked to impairment of complex articulation (Baldo et al., 2011), which may explain the greater engagement during pseudoword articulation.

We observed no substantial prearticulatory activity in peri-sylvian angular gyrus, instead peaking prominently after the initiation of articulation. This region has previously been linked to semantic and phonological processes during word processing (Stoeckel et al., 2009; Graves et al., 2010; Hartwigsen et al., 2010; Sliwinska et al., 2015), with fMRI deactivations observed when reading pseudowords (Taylor et al., 2014b). It is active during reading in children but may not be recruited in adults for simple reading tasks (Martin et al., 2015), with activation observed when comprehending multiword phrases (Dronkers et al., 2004; Wilson et al., 2014; Matchin et al., 2017; Fridriksson et al., 2018). It is also possible that fMRI deactivations are not strongly represented in the intracranial signal, as task-induced BGA decreases are not commonly observed.

In conclusion, this dataset comprehensively maps the dynamic functional characteristics of the two reading routes. Extant models suggest that all words should be initially processed through both reading pathways, with areas responsible for lexical access being activated inversely proportionally to lexical frequency, as demonstrated here in mFus and aIFG. Once a known word is detected, at a latency which depends on frequency, the sublexical route appears to be interrupted, and the word is named through the lexical route. However, if the word is novel, the lexical route continues to attempt to identify the pseudoword while the sublexical route, involving the IPS, constructs the phonology of these words, with activity driven by pseudoword orthographic complexity. Last, the early, lexically sensitive activation of ventral premotor cortex (pCS) implies a role in early grapheme-to-phoneme conversion, as part of the sublexical route, distinct from the IPS.

Footnotes

  • This work was supported by National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke NS098981. We thank all the patients who participated in this study; the neurologists at the Texas Comprehensive Epilepsy Program who participated in the care of these patients; and the nurses and technicians in the Epilepsy Monitoring Unit at Memorial Hermann Hospital who helped make this research possible.

  • The authors declare no competing financial interests.

  • Correspondence should be addressed to Nitin Tandon at nitin.tandon{at}uth.tmc.edu

SfN exclusive license.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Argall BD,
    2. Saad ZS,
    3. Beauchamp MS
    (2006) Simplified intersubject averaging on the cortical surface using SUMA. Hum Brain Mapp 27:14–27. doi:10.1002/hbm.20158 pmid:16035046
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Baldo JV,
    2. Wilkins DP,
    3. Ogar J,
    4. Willock S,
    5. Dronkers NF
    (2011) Role of the precentral gyrus of the insula in complex articulation. Cortex 47:800–807. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2010.07.001 pmid:20691968
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Binder JR,
    2. Desai RH,
    3. Graves WW,
    4. Conant LL
    (2009) Where is the semantic system? A critical review and meta-analysis of 120 functional neuroimaging studies. Cereb Cortex 19:2767–2796. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhp055 pmid:19329570
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Binder JR, et al
    . (2020) Temporal lobe regions essential for preserved picture naming after left temporal epilepsy surgery. Epilepsia 61:1939–1948. doi:10.1111/epi.16643
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  5. ↵
    1. Bouhali F,
    2. Bézagu Z,
    3. Dehaene S,
    4. Cohen L
    (2019) A mesial-to-lateral dissociation for orthographic processing in the visual cortex. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 116:21936–21946. doi:10.1073/pnas.1904184116 pmid:31591198
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    1. Brysbaert M,
    2. New B
    (2009) Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: a critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behav Res Methods 41:977–990. doi:10.3758/BRM.41.4.977 pmid:19897807
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Carreiras M,
    2. Armstrong BC,
    3. Perea M,
    4. Frost R
    (2014) The what, when, where, and how of visual word recognition. Trends Cogn Sci 18:90–98. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2013.11.005 pmid:24373885
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Cazzoli D,
    2. Müri RM,
    3. Kennard C,
    4. Rosenthal CR
    (2015) The role of the right posterior parietal cortex in letter migration between words. J Cogn Neurosci 27:377–386. doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00713 pmid:25203274
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Cohen L,
    2. Dehaene S,
    3. Vinckier F,
    4. Jobert A,
    5. Montavont A
    (2008) Reading normal and degraded words: contribution of the dorsal and ventral visual pathways. Neuroimage 40:353–366. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.11.036 pmid:18182174
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Coltheart M,
    2. Rastle K,
    3. Perry C,
    4. Langdon R,
    5. Ziegler J
    (2001) DRC: a dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. Psychol Rev 108:204–256. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.108.1.204 pmid:11212628
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Conner CR,
    2. Chen G,
    3. Pieters TA,
    4. Tandon N
    (2014) Category specific spatial dissociations of parallel processes underlying visual naming. Cereb Cortex 24:2741–2750. doi:10.1093/cercor/bht130 pmid:23696279
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Cox RW
    (1996) AFNI: software for analysis and visualization of functional magnetic resonance neuroimages. Comput Biomed Res 29:162–173. doi:10.1006/cbmr.1996.0014 pmid:8812068
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Dale AM,
    2. Fischl B,
    3. Sereno MI
    (1999) Cortical surface-based analysis: I. segmentation and surface reconstruction. Neuroimage 9:179–194. doi:10.1006/nimg.1998.0395 pmid:9931268
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Dehaene S,
    2. Cohen L
    (2011) The unique role of the visual word form area in reading. Trends Cogn Sci 15:254–262. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2011.04.003 pmid:21592844
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Dehaene-Lambertz G,
    2. Monzalvo K,
    3. Dehaene S
    (2018) The emergence of the visual word form: longitudinal evolution of category-specific ventral visual areas during reading acquisition. PLoS Biol 16:e2004103. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.2004103 pmid:29509766
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Dickens JV,
    2. Fama ME,
    3. DeMarco AT,
    4. Lacey EH,
    5. Friedman RB,
    6. Turkeltaub PE
    (2019) Localization of phonological and semantic contributions to reading. J Neurosci 39:5361–5368. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2707-18.2019 pmid:31061085
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. ↵
    1. Dronkers NF,
    2. Wilkins DP,
    3. Van Valin RD,
    4. Redfern BB,
    5. Jaeger JJ
    (2004) Lesion analysis of the brain areas involved in language comprehension. Cognition 92:145–177. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2003.11.002 pmid:15037129
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Esposito F,
    2. Singer N,
    3. Podlipsky I,
    4. Fried I,
    5. Hendler T,
    6. Goebel R
    (2013) Cortex-based inter-subject analysis of iEEG and fMRI data sets: application to sustained task-related BOLD and gamma responses. Neuroimage 66:457–468. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.10.080 pmid:23138047
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Fiebach CJ,
    2. Friederici AD,
    3. Müller K,
    4. Von Cramon DY
    (2002) fMRI evidence for dual routes to the mental lexicon in visual word recognition. J Cogn Neurosci 14:11–23. doi:10.1162/089892902317205285 pmid:11798383
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Fischl B,
    2. Sereno MI,
    3. Tootell RB,
    4. Dale A
    (1999) High-resolution inter-subject averaging and a surface-based coordinate system. Hum Brain Mapp 8:272–284. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0193(1999)8:4<272::AID-HBM10>3.0.CO;2-4
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Forseth KJ,
    2. Kadipasaoglu CM,
    3. Conner CR,
    4. Hickok G,
    5. Knight RT,
    6. Tandon N
    (2018) A lexical semantic hub for heteromodal naming in middle fusiform gyrus. Brain 141:2112–2126. doi:10.1093/brain/awy120 pmid:29860298
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Fridriksson J,
    2. Den Ouden DB,
    3. Hillis AE,
    4. Hickok G,
    5. Rorden C,
    6. Basilakos A,
    7. Yourganov G,
    8. Bonilha L
    (2018) Anatomy of aphasia revisited. Brain 141:848–862. doi:10.1093/brain/awx363 pmid:29360947
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Glasser MF,
    2. Coalson TS,
    3. Robinson EC,
    4. Hacker CD,
    5. Harwell J,
    6. Yacoub E,
    7. Ugurbil K,
    8. Andersson J,
    9. Beckmann CF,
    10. Jenkinson M,
    11. Smith SM,
    12. Van Essen DC
    (2016) A multi-modal parcellation of human cerebral cortex. Nature 536:171–178. doi:10.1038/nature18933 pmid:27437579
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Glezer LS,
    2. Kim J,
    3. Rule J,
    4. Jiang X,
    5. Riesenhuber M
    (2015) Adding words to the brain's visual dictionary: novel word learning selectively sharpens orthographic representations in the VWFA. J Neurosci 35:4965–4972. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4031-14.2015 pmid:25810526
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. ↵
    1. Gramfort A
    (2013) MEG and EEG data analysis with MNE-Python. Front Neurosci 7:1–13.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Gramfort A,
    2. Luessi M,
    3. Larson E,
    4. Engemann DA,
    5. Strohmeier D,
    6. Brodbeck C,
    7. Parkkonen L,
    8. Hämäläinen MS
    (2014) MNE software for processing MEG and EEG data. Neuroimage 86:446–460. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.10.027 pmid:24161808
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Graves WW,
    2. Desai R,
    3. Humphries C,
    4. Seidenberg MS,
    5. Binder JR
    (2010) Neural systems for reading aloud: a multiparametric approach. Cereb Cortex 20:1799–1815. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhp245 pmid:19920057
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Hartwigsen G,
    2. Baumgaertner A,
    3. Price CJ,
    4. Koehnke M,
    5. Ulmer S,
    6. Siebner HR
    (2010) Phonological decisions require both the left and right supramarginal gyri. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107:16494–16499. doi:10.1073/pnas.1008121107 pmid:20807747
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. ↵
    1. Heim S,
    2. Wehnelt A,
    3. Grande M,
    4. Huber W,
    5. Amunts K
    (2013) Effects of lexicality and word frequency on brain activation in dyslexic readers. Brain Lang 125:194–202. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2011.12.005 pmid:22230039
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. ↵
    1. Hirshorn EA,
    2. Li Y,
    3. Ward MJ,
    4. Richardson RM,
    5. Fiez JA,
    6. Ghuman AS
    (2016) Decoding and disrupting left midfusiform gyrus activity during word reading. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 113:8162–8167. doi:10.1073/pnas.1604126113 pmid:27325763
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. ↵
    1. Hula WD,
    2. Panesar S,
    3. Gravier ML,
    4. Yeh FC,
    5. Dresang HC,
    6. Dickey MW,
    7. Fernandez-Miranda JC
    (2020) Structural white matter connectometry of word production in aphasia: an observational study. Brain 143:2532–2544. doi:10.1093/brain/awaa193
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  32. ↵
    1. Jobard G,
    2. Crivello F,
    3. Tzourio-Mazoyer N
    (2003) Evaluation of the dual route theory of reading: a metanalysis of 35 neuroimaging studies. Neuroimage 20:693–712. doi:10.1016/S1053-8119(03)00343-4 pmid:14568445
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    1. Kadipasaoglu CM,
    2. Baboyan VG,
    3. Conner CR,
    4. Chen G,
    5. Saad ZS,
    6. Tandon N
    (2014) Surface-based mixed effects multilevel analysis of grouped human electrocorticography. Neuroimage 101:215–224. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.07.006 pmid:25019677
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. ↵
    1. Kadipasaoglu CM,
    2. Forseth K,
    3. Whaley M,
    4. Conner CR,
    5. Rollo MJ,
    6. Baboyan VG,
    7. Tandon N
    (2015) Development of grouped icEEG for the study of cognitive processing. Front Psychol 6:1008.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. ↵
    1. Kaestner E,
    2. Wu X,
    3. Friedman D,
    4. Dugan P,
    5. Devinsky O,
    6. Carlson C,
    7. Doyle W,
    8. Thesen T,
    9. Halgren E
    (2021) The precentral gyrus contributions to the early time-course of grapheme-to-phoneme conversion. Neurobiol Lang 2:1–28.
    OpenUrl
  36. ↵
    1. Kay KN,
    2. Yeatman JD
    (2017) Bottom-up and top-down computations in word- and face-selective cortex. Elife 6:e22341. doi:10.7554/eLife.22341
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  37. ↵
    1. Kayser AS,
    2. Erickson DT,
    3. Buchsbaum BR,
    4. D'Esposito M
    (2010) Neural representations of relevant and irrelevant features in perceptual decision making. J Neurosci 30:15778–15789. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3163-10.2010 pmid:21106817
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  38. ↵
    1. Kleiner M,
    2. Brainard D,
    3. Pelli D
    (2007) What's new in Psychtoolbox-3? Perception 36:1–16.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. ↵
    1. Kronbichler M,
    2. Hutzler F,
    3. Wimmer H,
    4. Mair A,
    5. Staffen W,
    6. Ladurner G
    (2004) The visual word form area and the frequency with which words are encountered: evidence from a parametric fMRI study. Neuroimage 21:946–953. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2003.10.021 pmid:15006661
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. ↵
    1. Liu Y,
    2. Shi G,
    3. Li M,
    4. Xing H,
    5. Song Y,
    6. Xiao L,
    7. Guan Y,
    8. Han Z
    (2021) Early top-down modulation in visual word form processing: evidence from an intracranial SEEG study. J Neurosci 41:6102–6115. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2288-20.2021
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  41. ↵
    1. Lochy A,
    2. Jacques C,
    3. Maillard L,
    4. Colnat-Coulbois S,
    5. Rossion B,
    6. Jonas J
    (2018) Selective visual representation of letters and words in the left ventral occipito-temporal cortex with intracerebral recordings. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 115:E7595–E7604. doi:10.1073/pnas.1718987115 pmid:30038000
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  42. ↵
    1. Mălîia MD,
    2. Donos C,
    3. Barborica A,
    4. Popa I,
    5. Ciurea J,
    6. Cinatti S,
    7. Mîndru I
    (2018) Functional mapping and effective connectivity of the human operculum. Cortex 109:303–321. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2018.08.024 pmid:30414541
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. ↵
    1. Mani J,
    2. Diehl B,
    3. Piao Z,
    4. Schuele SS,
    5. Lapresto E,
    6. Liu P,
    7. Nair DR,
    8. Dinner DS,
    9. Lüders HO
    (2008) Evidence for a basal temporal visual language center: cortical stimulation producing pure alexia. Neurology 71:1621–1627. doi:10.1212/01.wnl.0000334755.32850.f0 pmid:19001252
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  44. ↵
    1. Martin A,
    2. Schurz M,
    3. Kronbichler M,
    4. Richlan F
    (2015) Reading in the brain of children and adults: a meta-analysis of 40 functional magnetic resonance imaging studies. Hum Brain Mapp 36:1963–1981. doi:10.1002/hbm.22749 pmid:25628041
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. ↵
    1. Matchin W,
    2. Hammerly C,
    3. Lau E
    (2017) The role of the IFG and pSTS in syntactic prediction: evidence from a parametric study of hierarchical structure in fMRI. Cortex 88:106–123. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2016.12.010 pmid:28088041
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. ↵
    1. Matchin W,
    2. Hickok G
    (2020) The cortical organization of syntax. Cereb Cortex 30:1481–1498. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhz180 pmid:31670779
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. ↵
    1. McCarty MJ,
    2. Woolnough O,
    3. Mosher JC,
    4. Seymour J,
    5. Tandon N
    (2022) The listening zone of human electrocorticographic field potential recordings. eNeuro 9:ENEURO.0492-21.2022. doi:10.1523/ENEURO.0492-21.2022
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  48. ↵
    1. Nobre AC,
    2. Allison T,
    3. McCarthy G
    (1994) Word recognition in the human inferior temporal lobe. Nature 372:260–263. doi:10.1038/372260a0 pmid:7969469
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. ↵
    1. Nordt M,
    2. Gomez J,
    3. Natu VS,
    4. Rezai AA,
    5. Finzi D,
    6. Kular H,
    7. Grill-Spector K
    (2021) Cortical recycling in high-level visual cortex during childhood development. Nat Hum Behav 5:1686–1697. doi:10.1038/s41562-021-01141-5 pmid:34140657
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  50. ↵
    1. Numssen O,
    2. Bzdok D,
    3. Hartwigsen G
    (2021) Functional specialization within the inferior parietal lobes across cognitive domains. Elife 10:e63591. doi:10.7554/eLife.63591
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  51. ↵
    1. Perry C,
    2. Ziegler JC,
    3. Zorzi M
    (2007) Nested incremental modeling in the development of computational theories: the CDP+ model of reading aloud. Psychol Rev 114:273–315. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.114.2.273 pmid:17500628
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  52. ↵
    1. Perry C,
    2. Ziegler JC,
    3. Zorzi M
    (2010) Beyond single syllables: large-scale modeling of reading aloud with the Connectionist Dual Process (CDP++) model. Cogn Psychol 61:106–151. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.04.001 pmid:20510406
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  53. ↵
    1. Perry C,
    2. Zorzi M,
    3. Ziegler JC
    (2019) Understanding dyslexia through personalized large-scale computational models. Psychol Sci 30:386–395. doi:10.1177/0956797618823540 pmid:30730792
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  54. ↵
    1. Pieters TA,
    2. Conner CR,
    3. Tandon N
    (2013) Recursive grid partitioning on a cortical surface model: an optimized technique for the localization of implanted subdural electrodes. J Neurosurg 118:1086–1097. doi:10.3171/2013.2.JNS121450
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. ↵
    1. Price CJ,
    2. Devlin JT
    (2011) The interactive account of ventral occipitotemporal contributions to reading. Trends Cogn Sci 15:246–253. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2011.04.001 pmid:21549634
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  56. ↵
    1. Rapcsak SZ,
    2. Beeson PM,
    3. Henry ML,
    4. Leyden A,
    5. Kim E,
    6. Rising K,
    7. Andersen S,
    8. Cho HS
    (2009) Phonological dyslexia and dysgraphia: cognitive mechanisms and neural substrates. Cortex 45:575–591. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2008.04.006 pmid:18625494
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  57. ↵
    1. Rapp B,
    2. Purcell J,
    3. Hillis AE,
    4. Capasso R,
    5. Miceli G
    (2016) Neural bases of orthographic long-term memory and working memory in dysgraphia. Brain 139:588–604. doi:10.1093/brain/awv348 pmid:26685156
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  58. ↵
    1. Raschle NM,
    2. Chang M,
    3. Gaab N
    (2011) Structural brain alterations associated with dyslexia predate reading onset. Neuroimage 57:742–749. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.09.055 pmid:20884362
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  59. ↵
    1. Rastle K,
    2. Coltheart M
    (1999) Serial and strategic effects in reading aloud. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 25:482–503. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.25.2.482
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  60. ↵
    1. Ripamonti E,
    2. Aggujaro S,
    3. Molteni F,
    4. Zonca G,
    5. Frustaci M,
    6. Luzzatti C
    (2014) The anatomical foundations of acquired reading disorders: a neuropsychological verification of the dual-route model of reading. Brain Lang 134:44–67. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2014.04.001 pmid:24815949
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  61. ↵
    1. Rollo PS,
    2. Rollo MJ,
    3. Zhu P,
    4. Woolnough O,
    5. Tandon N
    (2020) Oblique trajectory angles in robotic stereo-electroencephalography. J Neurosurg 135:245–254. doi:10.3171/2020.5.JNS20975
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  62. ↵
    1. Rosenke M,
    2. Van Hoof R,
    3. Van Den Hurk J,
    4. Grill-Spector K,
    5. Goebel R
    (2021) A probabilistic functional atlas of human occipito-temporal visual cortex. Cereb Cortex 31:603–619. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhaa246 pmid:32968767
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  63. ↵
    1. Saad ZS,
    2. Reynolds RC
    (2012) Suma. Neuroimage 62:768–773. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.09.016 pmid:21945692
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  64. ↵
    1. Sebastian R,
    2. Gomez Y,
    3. Leigh R,
    4. Davis C,
    5. Newhart M,
    6. Hillis AE
    (2014) The roles of occipitotemporal cortex in reading, spelling, and naming. Cogn Neuropsychol 31:511–528. doi:10.1080/02643294.2014.884060 pmid:24527769
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  65. ↵
    1. Seidenberg MS,
    2. McClelland JL
    (1989) A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming. Psychol Rev 96:523–568. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.96.4.523 pmid:2798649
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  66. ↵
    1. Shim HS,
    2. Hurley RS,
    3. Rogalski E,
    4. Mesulam MM
    (2012) Anatomic, clinical, and neuropsychological correlates of spelling errors in primary progressive aphasia. Neuropsychologia 50:1929–1935. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2012.04.017 pmid:22579708
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  67. ↵
    1. Simos PG,
    2. Breier JI,
    3. Fletcher JM,
    4. Foorman BR,
    5. Castillo EM,
    6. Papanicolaou AC
    (2002) Brain mechanisms for reading words and pseudowords: an integrated approach. Cereb Cortex 12:297–305. doi:10.1093/cercor/12.3.297 pmid:11839603
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  68. ↵
    1. Sliwinska MW,
    2. James A,
    3. Devlin JT
    (2015) Inferior parietal lobule contributions to visual word recognition. J Cogn Neurosci 27:593–604. doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00721 pmid:25244114
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  69. ↵
    1. Stoeckel C,
    2. Gough PM,
    3. Watkins KE,
    4. Devlin JT
    (2009) Supramarginal gyrus involvement in visual word recognition. Cortex 45:1091–1096. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2008.12.004 pmid:19232583
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  70. ↵
    1. Tandon N
    (2012) Mapping of human language. In: Clinical brain mapping (Yoshor D, Mizrahi E, eds), pp 203–218. New York: McGraw Hill.
  71. ↵
    1. Tandon N,
    2. Tong BA,
    3. Friedman ER,
    4. Johnson JA,
    5. Von Allmen G,
    6. Thomas MS,
    7. Hope OA,
    8. Kalamangalam GP,
    9. Slater JD,
    10. Thompson SA
    (2019) Analysis of morbidity and outcomes associated with use of subdural grids vs stereoelectroencephalography in patients with intractable epilepsy. JAMA Neurol 76:672–681. doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.0098
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  72. ↵
    1. Taylor JS,
    2. Rastle K,
    3. Davis MH
    (2013) Can cognitive models explain brain activation during word and pseudoword reading? A meta-analysis of 36 neuroimaging studies. Psychol Bull 139:766–791. doi:10.1037/a0030266 pmid:23046391
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  73. ↵
    1. Taylor JS,
    2. Rastle K,
    3. Davis MH
    (2014a) Distinct neural specializations for learning to read words and name objects. J Cogn Neurosci 26:2128–2154. doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00614 pmid:24666161
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  74. ↵
    1. Taylor JS,
    2. Rastle K,
    3. Davis MH
    (2014b) Interpreting response time effects in functional imaging studies. Neuroimage 99:419–433. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.05.073 pmid:24904992
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  75. ↵
    1. Temple E,
    2. Deutsch GK,
    3. Poldrack RA,
    4. Miller SL,
    5. Tallal P,
    6. Merzenich MM,
    7. Gabrieli JDE
    (2003) Neural deficits in children with dyslexia ameliorated by behavioral remediation: evidence from functional MRI. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:2860–2865. doi:10.1073/pnas.0030098100 pmid:12604786
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  76. ↵
    1. Tomasino B,
    2. Ius T,
    3. Skrap M,
    4. Luzzatti C
    (2020) Phonological and surface dyslexia in individuals with brain tumors: performance pre-, intra-, immediately post-surgery and at follow-up. Hum Brain Mapp 41:5015–5031. doi:10.1002/hbm.25176 pmid:32857483
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  77. ↵
    1. Tong BA,
    2. Esquenazi Y,
    3. Johnson J,
    4. Zhu P,
    5. Tandon N
    (2020) The brain is not flat: conformal electrode arrays diminish complications of subdural electrode implantation, a series of 117 cases. World Neurosurg 144:e734–e742. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2020.09.063
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  78. ↵
    1. Tourville JA,
    2. Guenther FH
    (2011) The DIVA model: a neural theory of speech acquisition and production. Lang Cogn Process 26:952–981. doi:10.1080/01690960903498424 pmid:23667281
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  79. ↵
    1. Vaden KI,
    2. Halpin HR,
    3. Hickok GS
    (2009) Irvine phonotactic online dictionary, version 2.0. http://www.talkingbrains.org/2009/07/irvine-phonotactic-online-dictionary.html
  80. ↵
    1. Vinckier F,
    2. Naccache L,
    3. Papeix C,
    4. Forget J,
    5. Hahn-Barma V,
    6. Dehaene S,
    7. Cohen L
    (2006) 'What' and 'where' in word reading: ventral coding of written words revealed by parietal atrophy. J Cogn Neurosci 18:1998–2012. doi:10.1162/jocn.2006.18.12.1998
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  81. ↵
    1. Whaley ML,
    2. Kadipasaoglu CM,
    3. Cox SJ,
    4. Tandon N
    (2016) Modulation of orthographic decoding by frontal cortex. J Neurosci 36:1173–1184. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2985-15.2016 pmid:26818506
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  82. ↵
    1. White AL,
    2. Palmer J,
    3. Boynton GM,
    4. Yeatman JD
    (2019) Parallel spatial channels converge at a bottleneck in anterior word-selective cortex. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 116:10087–10096. doi:10.1073/pnas.1822137116 pmid:30962384
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  83. ↵
    1. Wilson SM,
    2. DeMarco AT,
    3. Henry ML,
    4. Gesierich B,
    5. Babiak M,
    6. Mandelli ML,
    7. Miller BL,
    8. Gorno-Tempini ML
    (2014) What role does the anterior temporal lobe play in sentence-level processing? Neural correlates of syntactic processing in semantic variant primary progressive aphasia. J Cogn Neurosci 26:970–985. doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00550 pmid:24345172
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  84. ↵
    1. Woodhead ZVJ,
    2. Barnes GR,
    3. Penny W,
    4. Moran R,
    5. Teki S,
    6. Price CJ,
    7. Leff AP
    (2014) Reading front to back: MEG evidence for early feedback effects during word recognition. Cereb Cortex 24:817–825. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhs365 pmid:23172772
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  85. ↵
    1. Woolnough O,
    2. Forseth KJ,
    3. Rollo PS,
    4. Tandon N
    (2019) Uncovering the functional anatomy of the human insula during speech. Elife 8:e53086. doi:10.7554/eLife.53086
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  86. ↵
    1. Woolnough O,
    2. Donos C,
    3. Rollo PS,
    4. Forseth KJ,
    5. Lakretz Y,
    6. Crone NE,
    7. Fischer-Baum S,
    8. Dehaene S,
    9. Tandon N
    (2021) Spatiotemporal dynamics of orthographic and lexical processing in the ventral visual pathway. Nat Hum Behav 5:389–398. doi:10.1038/s41562-020-00982-w
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  87. ↵
    1. Woolnough O,
    2. Snyder KM,
    3. Morse CW,
    4. McCarty MJ,
    5. Lhatoo SD,
    6. Tandon N
    (2022) Intraoperative localization and preservation of reading in ventral occipitotemporal cortex. J Neurosurg. doi: 10.3171/2022.2.JNS22170. doi:10.3171/2022.2.JNS22170
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  88. ↵
    1. Xu W,
    2. Kolozsvari OB,
    3. Oostenveld R,
    4. Hämäläinen JA
    (2020) Rapid changes in brain activity during learning of grapheme-phoneme associations in adults. Neuroimage 220:117058. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117058 pmid:32561476
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  89. ↵
    1. Yarkoni T,
    2. Balota D,
    3. Yap M
    (2008) Moving beyond Coltheart's N: a new measure of orthographic similarity. Psychon Bull Rev 15:971–979. doi:10.3758/PBR.15.5.971 pmid:18926991
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  90. ↵
    1. Zhi D,
    2. King M,
    3. Diedrichsen J
    (2021) Evaluating brain parcellations using the distance controlled boundary coefficient. bioRxiv. doi: 10.1101/2021.05.11.443151. doi:10.1101/2021.05.11.443151
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Neuroscience: 42 (27)
Journal of Neuroscience
Vol. 42, Issue 27
6 Jul 2022
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Masthead (PDF)
Email

Thank you for sharing this Journal of Neuroscience article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
A Spatiotemporal Map of Reading Aloud
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of Neuroscience
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Journal of Neuroscience.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
View Full Page PDF
Citation Tools
A Spatiotemporal Map of Reading Aloud
Oscar Woolnough, Cristian Donos, Aidan Curtis, Patrick S. Rollo, Zachary J. Roccaforte, Stanislas Dehaene, Simon Fischer-Baum, Nitin Tandon
Journal of Neuroscience 6 July 2022, 42 (27) 5438-5450; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2324-21.2022

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Request Permissions
Share
A Spatiotemporal Map of Reading Aloud
Oscar Woolnough, Cristian Donos, Aidan Curtis, Patrick S. Rollo, Zachary J. Roccaforte, Stanislas Dehaene, Simon Fischer-Baum, Nitin Tandon
Journal of Neuroscience 6 July 2022, 42 (27) 5438-5450; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2324-21.2022
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • dyslexia
  • human
  • intracranial recording
  • language
  • reading
  • speech

Responses to this article

Respond to this article

Jump to comment:

No eLetters have been published for this article.

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

Research Articles

  • Threonine-53 Phosphorylation of Dopamine Transporter Dictates κ-Opioid Receptor-Mediated Locomotor Suppression, Aversion, and Cocaine Reward
  • Developmental Olfactory Dysfunction and Abnormal Odor Memory in Immune-Challenged Disc1+/− Mice
  • Functional Roles of Gastrin-Releasing Peptide-Producing Neurons in the Suprachiasmatic Nucleus: Insights into Photic Entrainment and Circadian Regulation
Show more Research Articles

Behavioral/Cognitive

  • Attention Alters Population Spatial Frequency Tuning
  • Complex Impact of Stimulus Envelope on Motor Synchronization to Sound
  • The Molecular Substrates of Second-Order Conditioned Fear in the Basolateral Amygdala Complex
Show more Behavioral/Cognitive
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Follow SFN on BlueSky
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Facebook
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on Twitter
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on LinkedIn
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Youtube
  • Follow our RSS feeds

Content

  • Early Release
  • Current Issue
  • Issue Archive
  • Collections

Information

  • For Authors
  • For Advertisers
  • For the Media
  • For Subscribers

About

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Privacy Notice
  • Contact
  • Accessibility
(JNeurosci logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2025 by the Society for Neuroscience.
JNeurosci Online ISSN: 1529-2401

The ideas and opinions expressed in JNeurosci do not necessarily reflect those of SfN or the JNeurosci Editorial Board. Publication of an advertisement or other product mention in JNeurosci should not be construed as an endorsement of the manufacturer’s claims. SfN does not assume any responsibility for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from or related to any use of any material contained in JNeurosci.