Cited by 107Reading and Literacy DevelopmentNeurobiology of Language and BilingualismFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies

Testing for the Dual-Route Cascade Reading Model in the Brain: An fMRI Effective Connectivity Account of an Efficient Reading Style

Open access
Levy, Jonathan, Pernet, Cyril, Treserras, Sébastien, Boulanouar, Kader, Aubry, Florent, Démonet, Jean-François, Celsis, Pierre·2009·PLoS ONE

Abstract

Neuropsychological data about the forms of acquired reading impairment provide a strong basis for the theoretical framework of the dual-route cascade (DRC) model which is predictive of reading performance. However, lesions are often extensive and heterogeneous, thus making it difficult to establish precise functional anatomical correlates. Here, we provide a connective neural account in the aim of accommodating the main principles of the DRC framework and to make predictions on reading skill. We located prominent reading areas using fMRI and applied structural equation modeling to pinpoint distinct neural pathways. Functionality of regions together with neural network dissociations between words and pseudowords corroborate the existing neuroanatomical view on the DRC and provide a novel outlook on the sub-regions involved. In a similar vein, congruent (or incongruent) reliance of pathways, that is reliance on the word (or pseudoword) pathway during word reading and on the pseudoword (or word) pathway during pseudoword reading predicted good (or poor) reading performance as assessed by out-of-magnet reading tests. Finally, inter-individual analysis unraveled an efficient reading style mirroring pathway reliance as a function of the fingerprint of the stimulus to be read, suggesting an optimal pattern of cerebral information trafficking which leads to high reading performance.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0006675

Cites

70 of 70 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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 dual route neural model of reading proposed that the left posterior occipitotemporal cortex is involved in sublexical processing and is only necessary for pseudoword reading, while familiar words can be read without left occipitotemporal activation via direct connectivity between occipital and parietal regions.

    “A rather different dual route neural model of reading was proposed by Levy et al. (2009) who suggested that the left posterior occipitotemporal cortex was involved in sublexical processing and was only necessary for pseudoword reading. In contrast, familiar words could be read without left occipitotemporal activation by virtue of direct connectivity between occipital and parietal regions.”
  • The left posterior occipitotemporal cortex was more activated by pseudowords than real words.

    “Studies comparing word and pseudoword reading within script provided further evidence that the left posterior occipitotemporal cortex was more activated by pseudowords than real words (Levy et al., 2009; Nosarti et al., 2010; Woollams et al., 2011)”

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Levy, J., Pernet, C., Treserras, S., Boulanouar, K., Aubry, F., Démonet, J.-F., & Celsis, P.
Affiliations
  • Western General Hospital (GB)
  • Université Toulouse III - Paul Sabatier (FR)
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2009-08-18
Volume
4
Issue
8
Pages
e6675
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2021665264
Cited by
107
References
70
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 12
FWCI
12.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale
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
reading, effective connectivity, reading styles, neural pathways, reading achievement, individual differences
MeSH terms
Brain, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Models, Biological, Neuropsychological Tests, Reading

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