Abstract

Differences in how writing systems represent language raise important questions about whether there could be a universal functional architecture for reading across languages. In order to study potential language differences in the neural networks that support reading skill, we collected fMRI data from readers of alphabetic (English) and morpho-syllabic (Chinese) writing systems during two reading tasks. In one, participants read short stories under conditions that approximate natural reading, and in the other, participants decided whether individual stimuli were real words or not. Prior work comparing these two writing systems has overwhelmingly used meta-linguistic tasks, generally supporting the conclusion that the reading system is organized differently for skilled readers of Chinese and English. We observed that language differences in the reading network were greatly dependent on task. In lexical decision, a pattern consistent with prior research was observed in which the Middle Frontal Gyrus (MFG) and right Fusiform Gyrus (rFFG) were more active for Chinese than for English, whereas the posterior temporal sulcus was more active for English than for Chinese. We found a very different pattern of language effects in a naturalistic reading paradigm, during which significant differences were only observed in visual regions not typically considered specific to the reading network, and the middle temporal gyrus, which is thought to be important for direct mapping of orthography to semantics. Indeed, in areas that are often discussed as supporting distinct cognitive or linguistic functions between the two languages, we observed interaction. Specifically, language differences were most pronounced in MFG and rFFG during the lexical decision task, whereas no language differences were observed in these areas during silent reading of text for comprehension.

Highlights

  • Writing systems differ dramatically in how they represent language in written form: alphabets and syllabaries emphasize fidelity to the spoken forms of the language, whereas morphosyllabic systems combine probabilistic information about both sound and meaning [1,2,3]

  • Robust activation was observed throughout visual regions in the occipital and temporal cortices bilaterally, in regions associated with semantic processing throughout the temporal lobe, and in temporal and frontal regions associated with phonological processing

  • Regions previously identified as playing a particular role in reading were identified in both groups, including the left FFG "visual word form area" [35, 36], a posterior middle temporal region associated with mapping from print to meaning [37 38], and a posterior superior temporal gyrus and sulcus (pST) region associated with mapping from print to speech [9, 10]

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Writing systems differ dramatically in how they represent language in written form: alphabets and syllabaries emphasize fidelity to the spoken forms of the language, whereas morphosyllabic systems combine probabilistic information about both sound and meaning [1,2,3]. The same basic processes are engaged by English and Chinese, but the "division of labor" [5] between them differs by degree Consistent with this approach, we have shown that statistical learning models with the same functional architecture and learning rules simulate a range of effects in typical and disordered reading in both English and Chinese [6, 7]. Another view holds that English and Chinese writing systems differ qualitatively in the cognitive and neural processes they engage. In contrast, is characterized as permitting only "addressed" phonology, or the retrieval from memory of whole syllables based on whole characters [3] a process further related to processing of non-linear spatial arrangements of orthographic forms, which is associated with activity in the left middle frontal gyrus (MFG, [11, 12])

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

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 call

Disclaimer: 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.