Abstract
Written language is a human invention that our brains did not evolve for. Yet, most research has focused on finding a single theory of reading, identifying the common set of cognitive and neural processes shared across individuals, neglecting individual differences. In contrast, we investigated variation in single word reading. Using a novel statistical method for analyzing heterogeneity in multi-subject task-based functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), we clustered readers based on their brain’s response to written stimuli. Separate behavioral testing and neuroimaging analysis shows that these clusters differed in the role of the sublexical pathway in processing written language, but not in reading skill. Taken together, these results suggest that individuals vary in the cognitive and neural mechanisms involved in word reading. In general, neurocognitive theories need to account not only for what tends to be true of the population, but also the types of variation that exist, even within a neurotypical population.
Highlights
Cognitive scientists typically assume individuals rely on a common set of cognitive operations with essentially the same neural organization
Behavioral Results by functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) Subgrouping we reanalyzed the behavioral data based on the groupings generated from the fMRI data
Even within a range restricted set of highly competent, adult, literate readers, individuals vary in their performance on reading tasks. This variability was observed in high-level measures of reading skill like the ability to comprehend passages and in more specific, cognitively informed measures, like the time it takes them to reject pseudowords that are pronounced like real words in a lexical decision task or the time it takes to read nonwords
Summary
Cognitive scientists typically assume individuals rely on a common set of cognitive operations with essentially the same neural organization (de Schotten and Shallice, 2017). Individuals from a wide variety of linguistic and educational backgrounds have been argued to rely on essentially the same reading system, both in terms of cognitive architectures (Perfetti, 2011) and neural substrates (Rueckl et al, 2015). This extends even to readers of vastly different writing systems, with similar brain regions involved in processing logographic languages, transparent and opaque alphabetic languages and even Braille which is read by touch rather than by sight (Reich et al, 2011; Rueckl et al, 2015). Despite the fact that reading is a taught skill that our brains did not evolve for, it appears that most people learn to do it approximately the same way
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
