Selective activation around the left occipito-temporal sulcus for words relative to pictures: individual variability or false positives?
Open accessAbstract
We used high-resolution fMRI to investigate claims that learning to read results in greater left occipito-temporal (OT) activation for written words relative to pictures of objects. In the first experiment, 9/16 subjects performing a one-back task showed activation in > or =1 left OT voxel for words relative to pictures (P < 0.05 uncorrected). In a second experiment, another 9/15 subjects performing a semantic decision task activated > or =1 left OT voxel for words relative to pictures. However, at this low statistical threshold false positives need to be excluded. The semantic decision paradigm was therefore repeated, within subject, in two different scanners (1.5 and 3 T). Both scanners consistently localised left OT activation for words relative to fixation and pictures relative to words, but there were no consistent effects for words relative to pictures. Finally, in a third experiment, we minimised the voxel size (1.5 x 1.5 x 1.5 mm(3)) and demonstrated a striking concordance between the voxels activated for words and pictures, irrespective of task (naming vs. one-back) or script (English vs. Hebrew). In summary, although we detected differential activation for words relative to pictures, these effects: (i) do not withstand statistical rigour; (ii) do not replicate within or between subjects; and (iii) are observed in voxels that also respond to pictures of objects. Our findings have implications for the role of left OT activation during reading. More generally, they show that studies using low statistical thresholds in single subject analyses should correct the statistical threshold for the number of comparisons made or replicate effects within subject.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
There is remarkable similarity in the response to visual form processing of letters, words and objects in the left ventral occipitotemporal cortex.
“Several studies also replicated prior observations that there was remarkable similarity in the response to visual form processing of letters, words and objects (Eddy et al., 2007; Wright et al., 2008; Turkeltaub et al., 2008; Burgund et al., 2009; Kherif et al., 2011; Shinkareva et al., 2011).”
From A review and synthesis of the first 20years of PET and fMRI studies of heard speech, spoken language and reading (2012) · cites this paper as Wright et al., 2008
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 36 · Cited by 39
- Authors
- Wright, N. D., Mechelli, A., Noppeney, U., Veltman, D. J., Rombouts, S. A. R. B., Glensman, J., Haynes, J., & Price, C. J.
- Affiliations
- Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging (GB)
- King's College London (GB)
- Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics (DE)
- Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam (NL)
- Leiden University (NL)
- Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Price, Cathy J.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Human Brain Mapping
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2008-07-11
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 986-1000
- ISSN
- 1065-9471 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0193
- PMC
- PMC3261380
- OpenAlex
- W2155430679
- Cited by
- 39
- References
- 36
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 5.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Human Brain Mapping (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
- Digital Academic REpository of VU University Amsterdam (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) (submittedVersion)
- Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics (submittedVersion)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
- Max Planck Digital Library (submittedVersion)
- Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
- MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- Wellcome Trust (082420, MH64445)
- National Institutes of Health (MH64445)
- National Institute of Mental Health (P50MH064445, MH64445)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
- Keywords
- reading, false positives, interindividual variability, replication, voxel size, Jewish script, semantic decision task, one-back task, object naming
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Brain Mapping, False Positive Reactions, Female, Humans, Individuality, Male, Middle Aged, Occipital Lobe, Photic Stimulation, Reading, Temporal Lobe
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review