CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 190Reading and Literacy DevelopmentNeurobiology of Language and BilingualismVisual perception and processing mechanisms

The Development of Cortical Sensitivity to Visual Word Forms

Open access
Ben-Shachar, Michal, Dougherty, Robert F., Deutsch, Gayle K., Wandell, Brian A.·2011·Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
DOI 10.1162/jocn.2011.21615PMC PMC3214009
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The ability to extract visual word forms quickly and efficiently is essential for using reading as a tool for learning. We describe the first longitudinal fMRI study to chart individual changes in cortical sensitivity to written words as reading develops. We conducted four annual measurements of brain function and reading skills in a heterogeneous group of children, initially 7–12 years old. The results show age-related increase in children's cortical sensitivity to word visibility in posterior left occipito-temporal sulcus (LOTS), nearby the anatomical location of the visual word form area. Moreover, the rate of increase in LOTS word sensitivity specifically correlates with the rate of improvement in sight word efficiency, a measure of speeded overt word reading. Other cortical regions, including V1, posterior parietal cortex, and the right homologue of LOTS, did not demonstrate such developmental changes. These results provide developmental support for the hypothesis that LOTS is part of the cortical circuitry that extracts visual word forms quickly and efficiently and highlight the importance of developing cortical sensitivity to word visibility in reading acquisition.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

In a four-wave longitudinal fMRI study of children initially 7–12 years old, cortical sensitivity to word visibility in left occipito-temporal sulcus (LOTS) increased with age and tracked improvement in sight word efficiency. Other regions, including V1, posterior parietal cortex, and right OTS, did not show the same specific developmental coupling.

Key findings

  • LOTS word-visibility sensitivity improved from 0.57 in the younger age group to 0.275 in the older group, matching the adult value of 0.277; individual LOTS sensitivity increased over time (p < .05, two-tailed), whereas right OTS did not (p > .3).
  • Change in LOTS sensitivity correlated with change in sight word efficiency raw scores, but not with phonemic decoding efficiency or rapid letter naming; the second strongest correlation was with WJ-III word identification, and no significant correlations were detected with phonological processing or rapid automatic naming.
  • Poor readers (WJ-III Basic Reading age-standardized score under 90) showed a monotonically ascending LOTS response, while good readers’ curves saturated or dropped at full visibility; the only significant difference was at the most visible condition, where poor readers’ LOTS responses exceeded good readers’ (t(31) = 2.35, p < .05).
  • LOTS activated cluster volume showed an inverted-U pattern: positive change in 7- to 9-year-olds, no change in 10- to 12-year-olds, and negative change in 13- to 15-year-olds, with a significant younger-versus-older difference (t(12) = 2.68, p < .05); V1 showed no increase with word visibility or change over years, and PPC cortical-behavior correlations did not pass conventional significance.

Methods

  • Accelerated longitudinal design with four annual measurements in an initial cohort of 53 children (29 girls, 24 boys), 7–12 years old, recruited from the San Francisco Bay Area with a wide range of reading skills; 28 participants provided three or more usable data sets, with about 20% attrition each year.
  • fMRI used words presented at four visibility levels in a block design with an implicit fixation-color task; data were acquired on a 3T GE scanner with a spiral-out sequence (26 oblique slices, TR = 2000 msec, TE = 30 msec), and ROIs included LOTS, ROTS, V1, and PPC.
  • Neurometric BOLD response curves were measured as a function of word visibility; individual sensitivity was defined as one minus the visibility level giving half the maximum BOLD response, and slopes of sensitivity over age were compared with slopes of raw cognitive test scores, including TOWRE sight word efficiency and phonemic decoding efficiency.

Limitations

  • Stated in the paper: restricted scanning time in children and the parametric design prevent testing category selectivity or developmental changes in reading strategies; the individual ROI approach may miss more global changes in spatial distribution or connectivity; the sample focused on typically developing children, with only about 10% considered poor readers and no large dyslexic group.
  • Stated in the paper: annual measurements may be spaced too widely, and more measurements at shorter time lags might reach similar conclusions sooner and reduce attrition.
  • Evident from the text: attrition of about 20% per year and exclusion for excessive motion left only 28 of 53 children with three or more usable data sets, limiting the longitudinal sample; the lack of spatial smoothing and focus on predefined ROIs may reduce sensitivity to distributed effects.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1162/jocn.2011.21615

Cites

89 of 89 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

0 of 42 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingcitation

    The older children's mean LOTS word sensitivity (0.275) matches the adult value (0.277) previously reported.

    “The mean sensitivity value for words in the older age group agrees with the value we recently reported in adults (0.277) (Ben-Shachar et al., 2007b).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Ben-Shachar et al., 2007b

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Findingown data

    In children, the LOTS word visibility neurometric curve changes systematically with development.

    “As shown in Figure 1B, there are systematic differences in the word visibility neurometric curve in LOTS as children develop.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Age groups did not differ significantly in their ROTS neurometric functions.

    “In contrast to the LOTS, however, the ROTS neurometric functions do not differ significantly between age groups (Supplementary Figure 1).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingcitation

    In individual children, LOTS cortical sensitivity change is correlated with change in SWE raw scores.

    “Measured child by child, the change in LOTS cortical sensitivity significantly correlates with the change in sight word efficiency (SWE) raw scores (Torgesen et al., 1999) (Figure 2C).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Torgesen et al., 1999

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Findingown data

    No comparable developmental changes appeared in V1, posterior parietal cortex, or the right-hemisphere homologue of LOTS.

    “Other cortical regions, including V1, posterior parietal cortex, and the right homologue of LOTS, did not demonstrate such developmental changes.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 23
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 8

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    LOTS sensitivity was 0.57 in younger children and 0.275 in older children.

    “In the age-grouped data (Figure 1B), the sensitivity parameter changes substantially from the younger age group (0.57) to the older age group (0.275).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    ROTS BOLD responses increase with word visibility, consistent with adult findings.

    “Responses in the ROTS increase with word visibility, matching our results in adults (Ben-Shachar et al., 2007b).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Ben-Shachar et al., 2007b

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The study shows rising word response curves in children as young as 7, consistent with recent German-reader reports.

    “We demonstrate rising response curves to words in children as young as 7 years, in agreement with recent reports in German readers (Brem et al., 2010).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Brem et al., 2010 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Children attain adult-like LOTS sensitivity near age 12, but their responses continue changing into adolescence, with adult cluster volume reached around age 15.

    “The volume analysis shows that, although children reach adult sensitivity in LOTS around 12 years, further changes in their responses are evident until adolescence, reaching adult cluster volume in LOTS around the age of 15.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Good readers show a sigmoidal word visibility curve in both LOTS and ROTS, with a small signal drop at the highest visibility.

    “In both the LOTS and ROTS, good readers have a sigmoidal word visibility curve, with a slight signal drop-off at the most visible condition.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The only significant good-versus-poor reader difference in LOTS occurs at the most visible condition, with poor readers responding more than good readers.

    “A significant difference is measured only for the most visible condition in the LOTS, wherein poor readers' responses exceed those of good readers (t(31) = 2.35, p < .05, participants who yielded more than one value in the group were counted only once).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Foveal V1 responds to all visual stimuli but shows no response increase as word visibility rises.

    “There is a response to all of the visual stimuli, but (a) there is no increase in the response with word visibility and (b) no change in the word visibility neurometric function over the years (Supplementary Figure 3).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Longitudinally, LOTS cluster volume increases in 7- to 9-year-olds, stays stable in 10- to 12-year-olds, and decreases in 13- to 15-year-olds.

    “The longitudinal analysis reveals positive change in LOTS cluster volume in 7- to 9-year-olds, no change in 10- to 12-year-olds, and a negative change in 13- to 15-year-olds.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Children did the fixation task accurately (87-92% correct) with no significant differences across conditions or measurement points.

    “Children performed the fixation task with high accuracy (87–92% correct on different conditions and measurement points, no significant difference between conditions or measurement points).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Experience-dependent plasticity may shape some cortical areas for efficient recognition of important visual categories as part of human genetic endowment.

    “But the ability of experience-dependent plasticity to shape certain parts of cortex for efficiently identifying important visual categories in our environment may well be part of our genetic endowment (Dehaene & Cohen, 2007).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Dehaene & Cohen, 2007

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    To handle long-term signal-to-noise changes, the study created a robust cortical sensitivity measure defined as a threshold on the stimulus-response curve.

    “To overcome long-term changes in signal to noise ratio, we developed a robust measure of cortical sensitivity to word visibility, which is defined as a threshold value on a stimulus–response curve.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Noise in fMRI measurements makes it hard to compare activation levels across periods of months or years.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    Annual subject attrition was approximately 20%.

    “Subject attrition was about 20% each year (Table 1, top row).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The study used a nonparametric individual sensitivity measure to avoid assumptions about curve shape and to reduce effects of year-to-year signal-strength fluctuations.

    “We used this nonparametric sensitivity measure for individual data to avoid parametric assumptions about the shape of the function and to overcome fluctuations in overall signal strength across the years.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    A group-level pre/post design does not give a precise within-person change measure and makes linking cortical and behavioral changes difficult.

    “However, it does not provide a precise measure of the change within individual and, therefore, makes it hard to relate cortical and behavioral changes.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    To limit attrition, the study enrolled a large initial sample and kept a stable team in regular contact with families.

    “To reduce the attrition problem, we recruited a large initial sample and maintained a stable team who kept constant communication with our participating families.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Children drop out of longitudinal studies at especially high rates.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    A genuine longitudinal perspective needs at least three measurement points.

    “A true longitudinal perspective requires assessment of change over three or more time points (Willett, Singer, & Martin, 1998), and attrition rates are particularly high in child populations, for example, because of family mobility.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Willett, Singer, & Martin, 1998

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    Twenty-eight of the original 53 children completed all four measurements.

    “Twenty-eight participants of the initial 53 remained with us for the entire four-measurement study (the twenty-ninth participant in Measurement 4 could not participate in Years 2 and 3 because of braces but returned for the fourth measurement when those were removed).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    The analysis tracked the same voxels over time by intersecting functional localizer maps across years.

    “We took the intersection of the functional localizer maps across the years.”
    • Also stated in: § Data Analysis · plain
      “In this way, we analyzed changes in the response properties of the same set of voxels along time.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    In young children, anatomical change in posterior regions was minor and smaller than the functional scan resolution.

    “Even in young children, posterior anatomical changes were small and below the resolution of our functional measurements.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Because ROTS showed no cross-sectional age effect, it probably lacks the experience-dependent changes seen in LOTS.

    “The lack of a cross-sectional age effect in ROTS suggests that this region does not undergo the same experience-dependent changes as the LOTS.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The full curves indicate that visibility modulates LOTS responses similarly in good and poor readers, but poor readers' responses fail to saturate.

    “Given the full curves, it is clear that LOTS responses in good and poor readers are similarly modulated by visibility, except poor readers' responses do not saturate.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The results inform general-population reading development and offer hints about impaired reading.

    “Our results, therefore, provide information about reading development in the general population, with some hints regarding impaired reading (see Figure 4).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The sample's roughly 10% poor-reader rate matches the overall population distribution.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The result supports LOTS involvement in rapid visual word form extraction, not phonological decoding.

    “On the positive side, this finding supports a role for the LOTS in fast extraction of visual word forms but not in phonological decoding.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The results further support that the LOTS cluster sensitive to word visibility expands and then contracts, attaining adult size near age 15.

    “These findings provide additional evidence that the cluster activated by word visibility in LOTS first grows and then shrinks, reaching adult size around 15 years.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    This system's proper development matters for English and possibly more so for other writing systems.

    “The proper development of this system is surely relevant in English (Shaywitz et al., 2002), but it may be even more important in other writing systems (van der Mark et al., 2009; Share, 2008; Ziegler, 2006; Siok, Perfetti, Jin, & Tan, 2004; Holopainen, Ahonen, & Lyytinen, 2001; Paulesu et al., 2001).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Shaywitz et al., 2002 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites van der Mark et al., 2009 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Share, 2008 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Volume changes in fMRI activations are documented for face processing, but no comparable data exist for the VWFA.

    “Developmental changes in the volume of fMRI activations have been recorded in the domain of face processing (Golarai, Liberman, Yoon, & Grill-Spector, 2010; Golarai et al., 2007; Scherf, Behrmann, Humphreys, & Luna, 2007), but to our knowledge, there are no data on parallel changes in the VWFA.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Golarai et al., 2010

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Golarai et al., 2007 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Scherf et al., 2007 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The parametric manipulation cannot test hypotheses about response category selectivity or developmental reading strategy changes.

    “A clear disadvantage is that this manipulation does not allow testing hypotheses about the category selectivity of the response or about developmental changes in reading strategies.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The sample did not include a large dyslexic group; roughly 10% qualified as poor readers.

    “We did not recruit a large group of dyslexics; in fact, only about 10% of our sample can be considered poor readers, similar to the distribution in the overall population.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Older children's smaller clusters are interpreted as processing the same stimulus with fewer resources, i.e., greater efficiency, similar to good-versus-poor reader differences.

    “We interpret the size reduction observed in older children as reflecting the ability to process the same visual stimulus with fewer resources, that is, increased efficiency, along the same lines explaining the differences between good and poor readers (Figure 4).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
29 of 29

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Extensive exposure to written words may shape visual pathways via experience-dependent cortical plasticity.

    “Such extensive exposure to a particular class of stimuli may shape the functional properties of the visual pathways via experience-dependent cortical plasticity.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The VOT comprises multiple cell populations with differing functional preferences.

    “Finally, the VOT is comprised of multiple cell populations with differing functional preferences.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Children drop out of longitudinal studies at especially high rates.

    “attrition rates are particularly high in child populations, for example, because of family mobility.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Written language appeared only recently in human history.

    “reading is a relatively recent invention in human history.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Noise in fMRI measurements makes it hard to compare activation levels across periods of months or years.

    “Changes in signal to noise ratio over time: Measurement noise complicates comparisons between fMRI activation levels over developmentally relevant periods (months or years).”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    A large share of frequent SWE sight words have irregular spellings that may resist grapheme-to-phoneme decoding.

    “Many frequent “sight words” included in the SWE subtest have irregular orthography, which may not be read by piece-wise grapheme to phoneme conversion.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The sample's roughly 10% poor-reader rate matches the overall population distribution.

    “only about 10% of our sample can be considered poor readers, similar to the distribution in the overall population.”
7 of 7

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?

  • In the early stages of children or adults learning to read, left ventral occipitotemporal activation increased with learning and correlated with the rate of improvement in word recognition.

    “In the early stages of children or adults learning to read, left ventral occipitotemporal activation increased with learning (Brem et al., 2010; Dehaene et al., 2010b) and this correlated with the rate of improvement in word recognition (Ben-Shachar 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 Ben-Shachar et al., 2011

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • Consistentt(31) = 2.35reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .025

    “t(31) = 2.35, p < .05”

  • Consistentt(12) = 2.68reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .020

    “t(12) = 2.68, p < .05”

2 of 2

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Individual sensitivity has two conflicting definitions

    Minor

    The results first define an individual child's sensitivity as the visibility level at half maximum, then define the measure for that same individual sensitivity as one minus that level. These give different values and reverse the direction of change.

1 of 1

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Semel, 1995, Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals 3 (CELF-3).
  2. Wechsler, 2003, Wechsler intelligence scale for children-4th edition.
  3. Wiederholt, 2001, Gray oral reading test-4th edition (GORT-4).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Ben-Shachar, M., Dougherty, R. F., Deutsch, G. K., & Wandell, B. A.
Affiliations
  • 1Stanford University
  • Stanford University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
Publisher
MIT Press - Journals
Published
2011-09-01
Volume
23
Issue
9
Pages
2387-2399
ISSN
  • 0898-929X (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-8898
DOI
10.1162/jocn.2011.21615
PMC
PMC3214009
OpenAlex
W2097515555
Semantic Scholar
25ce4b6a19acc6bd305e4e6804a30d708f790b97
Cited by
190
References
89
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 19
FWCI
32.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Eye Institute (EY-015000, R01EY015000)
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 acquisition, longitudinal brain development, children, visual word form area, posterior parietal cortex, visual cortex
MeSH terms
Age Factors, Brain Mapping, Child, Child Development, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Longitudinal Studies, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Neuropsychological Tests, Oxygen, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Reading, Temporal Lobe, Vocabulary

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-08.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-08.

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