Functionally Separable Font-invariant and Font-sensitive Neural Populations in Occipitotemporal Cortex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reading relies on the rapid visual recognition of words viewed in a wide variety of fonts. We used fMRI to identify neural populations showing reduced fMRI responses to repeated words displayed in different fonts ("font-invariant" repetition suppression). We also identified neural populations showing greater fMRI responses to words repeated in a changing font as compared with words repeated in the same font ("font-sensitive" release from repetition suppression). We observed font-invariant repetition suppression in two anatomically distinct regions of the left occipitotemporal cortex (OT), a "visual word form area" in mid-fusiform cortex, and a more posterior region in the middle occipital gyrus. In contrast, bilateral shape-selective lateral occipital cortex and posterior fusiform showed considerable sensitivity to font changes during the viewing of repeated words. Although the visual word form area and the left middle occipital gyrus showed some evidence of font sensitivity, both regions showed a relatively greater degree of font invariance than font sensitivity. Our results show that the neural mechanisms in the left OT involved in font-invariant word recognition are anatomically distinct from those sensitive to font-related shape changes. We conclude that font-invariant representation of visual word form is instantiated at multiple levels by anatomically distinct neural mechanisms within the left OT.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".