Neural Correlates of Lexical Access during Visual Word Recognition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
People can discriminate real words from nonwords even when the latter are orthographically and phonologically word-like, presumably because words activate specific lexical and/or semantic information. We investigated the neural correlates of this identification process using event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Participants performed a visual lexical decision task under conditions that encouraged specific word identification: Nonwords were matched to words on orthographic and phonologic characteristics, and accuracy was emphasized over speed. To identify neural responses associated with activation of nonsemantic lexical information, processing of words and nonwords with many lexical neighbors was contrasted with processing of items with no neighbors. The fMRI data showed robust differences in activation by words and word-like nonwords, with stronger word activation occurring in a distributed, left hemisphere network previously associated with semantic processing, and stronger nonword activation occurring in a posterior inferior frontal area previously associated with grapheme-to-phoneme mapping. Contrary to lexicon-based models of word recognition, there were no brain areas in which activation increased with neighborhood size. For words, activation in the left prefrontal, angular gyrus, and ventrolateral temporal areas was stronger for items without neighbors, probably because accurate responses to these items were more dependent on activation of semantic information. The results show neural correlates of access to specific word information. The absence of facilitatory lexical neighborhood effects on activation in these brain regions argues for an interpretation in terms of semantic access. Because subjects performed the same task throughout, the results are unlikely to be due to task-specific attentional, strategic, or expectancy effects.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".