Cited by 224Reading and Literacy DevelopmentNeurobiology of Language and BilingualismFace Recognition and Perception

A Parametric Approach to Orthographic Processing in the Brain: An fMRI Study

Tagamets, M. -A., Novick, Jared M., Chalmers, Maria L., Friedman, Rhonda B.·2000·Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

Abstract

Brain activation studies of orthographic stimuli typically start with the premise that different types of orthographic strings (e.g., words, pseudowords) differ from each other in discrete ways, which should be reflected in separate and distinct areas of brain activation. The present study starts from a different premise: Words, pseudowords, letterstrings, and false fonts vary systematically across a continuous dimension of familiarity to English readers. Using a one-back matching task to force encoding of the stimuli, the four types of stimuli were visually presented to healthy adult subjects while fMRI activations were obtained. Data analysis focused on parametric comparisons of fMRI activation sites. We did not find any region that was exclusively activated for real words. Rather, differences among these string types were mainly expressed as graded changes in the balance of activations among the regions. Our results suggest that there is a widespread network of brain regions that form a common network for the processing of all orthographic string types.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1162/089892900562101

Cites

52 of 52 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?

  • Activation for written words was less than that for unfamiliar pseudowords or pictures of objects.

    “At the functional level, the abstract visual word processing claim was challenged by observations that activation for written words (that have abstract visual word form representations) was less than that for stimuli that don't have abstract word representations such as (a) unfamiliar pseudowords (Brunswick et al., 1999; Fujimaki et al., 1999; Tagamets et al., 2000; Xu et al., 2001) or (b) pict”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tagamets, M. A., Novick, J. M., Chalmers, M. L., & Friedman, R. B.
Affiliations
Georgetown University Medical Center (US)
Venue
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
Published
2000-03-01
Volume
12
Issue
2
Pages
281-297
ISSN
  • 0898-929X (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-8898
OpenAlex
W2130618843
Cited by
224
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 15
FWCI
22.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Georgetown University
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01HD036019, R01HD36019)
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 › Face Recognition and Perception
Keywords
orthographic processing, word recognition, pseudowords, familiarity, parametric study, visual word processing, brain activation
MeSH terms
Adult, Brain, Brain Mapping, Female, Humans, Language, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Middle Aged, Parietal Lobe, Reading, Temporal Lobe, Visual Pathways, Writing, Models, Statistical

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