Understanding the role of speech production in reading: Evidence for a print-to-speech neural network using graphical analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The neural circuitry associated with language processing is complex and dynamic. Graphical models are useful for studying complex neural networks as this method provides information about unique connectivity between regions within the context of the entire network of interest. Here, the authors explored the neural networks during covert reading to determine the role of feedforward and feedback loops in covert speech production. METHOD: Brain activity of skilled adult readers was assessed in real word and pseudoword reading tasks with functional MRI (fMRI). RESULTS: The authors provide evidence for activity coherence in the feedforward system (inferior frontal gyrus-supplementary motor area) during real word reading and in the feedback system (supramarginal gyrus-precentral gyrus) during pseudoword reading. Graphical models provided evidence of an extensive, highly connected, neural network when individuals read real words that relied on coordination of the feedforward system. In contrast, when individuals read pseudowords the authors found a limited/restricted network that relied on coordination of the feedback system. CONCLUSION: Together, these results underscore the importance of considering multiple pathways and articulatory loops during language tasks and provide evidence for a print-to-speech neural network. (PsycINFO Database Record
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".