Cited by 973Reading and Literacy DevelopmentNeurobiology of Language and BilingualismTactile and Sensory Interactions

Evaluation of the dual route theory of reading: a metanalysis of 35 neuroimaging studies

Jobard, G, Crivello, F, Tzourio-Mazoyer, N·2003·NeuroImage

Abstract

Numerous studies concerned with cerebral structures underlying word reading have been published during the last decade. A few controversies, however, together with methodological or theoretical discrepancies between laboratories, still contribute to blurring the overall view of advances effected in neuroimaging. Carried out within the dual route of reading framework, the aim of this metanalysis was to provide an objective picture of these advances. To achieve this, we used an automated analysis method based on the inventory of activation peaks issued from word or pseudoword reading contrasts of 35 published neuroimaging studies. A first result of this metanalysis was that no cluster of activations has been found more recruited by word than pseudoword reading, implying that the first steps of word access may be common to word and word-like stimuli and would take place within a left occipitotemporal region (previously referred to as the Visual Word Form Area-VWFA) situated in the ventral route, at the junction between inferior temporal and fusiform gyri. The results also indicated the existence of brain regions predominantly involved in one of the two routes to access word. The graphophonological conversion seems indeed to rely on left lateralized brain structures such as superior temporal areas, supramarginal gyrus, and the opercular part of the inferior frontal gyrus, these last two regions reflecting a greater load in working memory during such an access. The lexicosemantic route is thought to arise from the coactivation of the VWFA and semantic areas. These semantic areas would encompass a basal inferior temporal area, the posterior part of the middle temporal gyrus, and the triangular part of inferior frontal gyrus. These results confirm the suitability of the dual route framework to account for activations observed in nonpathological subjects while they read.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s1053-8119(03)00343-4

Cites

73 of 73 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • A meta-analysis of 35 previous neuroimaging studies of reading dissociated two routes: a lexicosemantic route involving left anterior ventral occipitotemporal cortex, posterior middle temporal gyrus, and triangular inferior frontal gyrus; and direct orthography-to-phonology links involving left superior temporal areas, supramarginal gyrus, and opercular inferior frontal gyrus.

    “In a meta-analysis of 35 previous neuroimaging studies of reading, Jobard et al. (2003) dissociated two routes for reading: (a) a lexicosemantic route involving the left anterior ventral occipitotemporal cortex (basal temporal language area), the posterior part of the middle temporal gyrus, and the triangular part of inferior frontal gyrus; and (b) direct links between orthography and phonology”
  • Activation in left posterior temporal and parietal cortices was higher for familiar words than pseudowords and for words with irregular compared to regular spellings.

    “Other regions associated with the semantic reading route were the left posterior temporal and parietal cortices, where activation was higher for familiar words than pseudowords (Fiebach et al., 2002; Binder et al., 2003, 2005; Jobard et al., 2003; Ischebeck et al., 2004; Vigneau et al., 2005; Borowsky et al., 2006) and for words with irregular compared to regular spellings (Senaha et al., 2005;”
  • Definitive interpretations of word and pseudoword activation differences were difficult because words and pseudowords differ in more than one way and because differences in activation are only relative within areas commonly activated by a range of stimuli and tasks.

    “Overall, definitive interpretations of word and pseudoword activation differences were difficult because words and pseudowords differ in more than one way (e.g. visual familiarity, access to semantics and phonological decoding) and because differences in activation are only relative (rather than absolute) within areas that are commonly activated by a range of stimuli and tasks (Jobard et al., 2003”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jobard, G., Crivello, F., & Tzourio-Mazoyer, N.
Affiliations
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2003-10
Volume
20
Issue
2
Pages
693-712
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2157108417
Cited by
973
References
73
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 44 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 40 · 2019: 84 · 2018: 43 · 2017: 51 · 2016: 56 · 2015: 45 · 2014: 94 · 2013: 55 · 2012: 61
FWCI
4.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
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 › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
Keywords
word reading, pseudoword reading, visual word form area, fusiform gyrus, inferior frontal gyrus, middle temporal gyrus, supramarginal gyrus, working memory, semantic processing
MeSH terms
Clinical Trials as Topic, Cognition, Humans, Functional Laterality, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Nervous System, Nervous System Physiological Phenomena, Occipital Lobe, Reading, Stereotaxic Techniques, Temporal Lobe, Tomography, Emission-Computed, Visual Cortex, Visual Perception, Cluster Analysis

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