Meta-analysis of the functional neuroanatomy of single-word reading: method and validation
Abstract
Intersubject variability and subtle differences in experimental design can lead to variable results in studies of cognitive processes such as reading. To accurately identify the neural processes associated with cognition and sensorimotor processing, meta-analytic methods capable of identifying areas of consistent activation among studies are useful. This paper describes a novel approach for combining published neuroimaging results from multiple studies, designed to maximize the quantification of interstudy concordance while minimizing the subjective aspects of meta-analysis. In this method, a localization probability distribution was modeled for each activation focus obtained from 11 PET studies of reading single words aloud, and the union of these distributions was taken to yield an activation likelihood estimate map for the brain. Significance was assessed via permutation analysis of randomly generated sets of foci. Regions of significant concordance were identified in bilateral motor and superior temporal cortices, pre-SMA, left fusiform gyrus, and the cerebellum. These meta-analytic results were validated by comparison with new fMRI data on aloud word reading in normal adult subjects. Excellent correspondence between the two statistical maps was observed, with fMRI maxima lying close to all meta-analysis peaks and statistical values at the peaks identified by the two techniques correlating strongly. This close correspondence between PET meta-analysis and fMRI results also demonstrates the validity of using fMRI for the study of language tasks involving overt speech responses. Advantages of this automated meta-analysis technique include quantification of the level of concordance at all brain locations and the provision for use of a threshold for statistical significance of concordance.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The left occipitotemporal cortex is consistently activated by visual word processing across languages and orthographies.
“All studies agreed that this area was consistently activated by visual word processing across languages and orthographies (e.g. Cohen et al., 2002; Turkeltaub et al., 2002; Fu et al., 2002; Price and Devlin, 2003; Reinholz and Pollmann, 2005; Vigneau et al., 2005).”
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 Turkeltaub et al., 2002
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 49 · Cited by 1,604
- Authors
- Turkeltaub, P. E., Eden, G. F., Jones, K. M., & Zeffiro, T. A.
- Affiliations
- Georgetown University Medical Center (US)
- Venue
- NeuroImage
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2002-07
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 765-780
- ISSN
- 1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2140255740
- Cited by
- 1,604
- References
- 49
- Citations by year
- 2026: 50 · 2025: 71 · 2024: 59 · 2023: 64 · 2022: 117 · 2021: 75 · 2020: 80 · 2019: 70 · 2018: 62 · 2017: 70 · 2016: 83 · 2015: 104 · 2014: 91 · 2013: 94 · 2012: 114
- FWCI
- 5.31
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (HD40095, HD37890, R01HD037890, P50HD040095)
- 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 › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
- Keywords
- single word reading, overt speech, superior temporal cortex, pre-supplementary motor area, fusiform gyrus, cerebellum, motor cortex, language processing
- MeSH terms
- Brain, Brain Mapping, Cerebrovascular Circulation, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Reading, Tomography, Emission-Computed, Reproducibility of Results
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