Control energy detects discrepancies in good vs. poor readers' structural-functional coupling during a rhyming task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• Pseudoword trials required higher control energy than word trials in reading network areas without auditory input. • Incongruent trials required higher control energy than congruent trials in reading network areas without auditory input. • The left fusiform gyrus required higher control energy in conditions with visual inputs. • The left superior temporal gyrus (STG) required higher control energy in conditions with auditory input. • The left STG, but not the left fusiform gyrus, showed interaction effect between orthographic similarity and modality. Neuroimaging studies have identified functional and structural brain circuits that support reading. However, much less is known about how reading-related functional dynamics are constrained by white matter structure. Network control theory proposes that cortical brain dynamics are linearly determined by the white matter connectome, using control energy to evaluate the difficulty of the transition from one cognitive state to another. Here we apply this approach to linking brain dynamics with reading ability and disability in school-age children. A total of 51 children ages 8.25 -14.6 years performed an in-scanner rhyming task in visual and auditory modalities, with orthographic (spelling) and phonological (rhyming) similarity manipulated across trials. White matter structure and fMRI activation were used conjointly to compute the control energy of the reading network in each condition relative to a null fixation state. We then tested differences in control energy across trial types, finding higher control energy during non-word trials than word trials, and during incongruent trials than congruent trials. ROI analyses further showed a dissociation between control energy of the left fusiform and superior temporal gyrus depending on stimulus modality, with higher control energy for visual modalities in fusiform and higher control energy for auditory modalities in STG. Together, this study highlights that control theory can explain variations on cognitive demands in higher-level abilities such as reading, beyond what can be inferred from either functional or structural MRI measures alone.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".