ArticleHuman brain mapping2025
Lexical Representations in the Common and Specific Neural Networks for Visual, Phonological, and Semantic Processing in Chinese Reading.
Article in Human brain mapping, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Previous studies have investigated the common and specific neural correlates underlying visuo-orthographic, phonological, and semantic processing in word reading. However, it remains unclear how those networks represent different types of lexical information and how such representations and the interactions between networks are modulated by task-induced processing demands. To address this issue, 32 native Chinese participants were scanned with fMRI while performing a localizer task, and two reading tasks designed to elicit high demands on visuo-orthographic processing (i.e., structural judgment task) and semantic processing (i.e., familiarity judgment task). Activation analyses identified both common and specific neural networks involved in visual, phonological, and semantic processing. Representational similarity analysis (RSA) further revealed that the common network represented multiple types of lexical information, whereas the specific networks selectively represented particular lexical information corresponding to their respective processing type. Moreover, processing demands modulated lexical representations of common and specific networks in distinct ways: the common network exhibited flexible representational patterns, representing task-relevant lexical information under high processing demands, whereas the specific networks showed process-dependent selectivity, representing corresponding lexical information only under high processing demands. Functional connectivity analyses further indicated that processing demands could modulate connectivity patterns among networks, particularly between the common and specific networks. These findings highlight the distinct functional roles of common and specific networks, providing a new perspective on the complementary contributions of functionally overlapping and specialized systems in word reading.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.