Computational Modeling and Cognitive Neuroscience approaches to Memory and Language
- 1. Methods
- 2. Applications to Memory and Language
1. Methods
Cognitive neuroscientists use a wide range of methods to study the brain and the ways in which it supports cognition. Broadly speaking, most of these can be classified into three groups: functional neuroimaging techniques, lesion studies, and computational modeling. Each of these is reviewed below. Note, however, that other methods not covered here are also frequently used, e.g., structural imaging methods and electrophysiological recording. For a comprehensive introductory overview, see Chapter 3 in:
a. Functional neuroimaging methods.
Functional neuroimaging methods enable researchers to study brain function by constructing images of the brain as it performs various tasks. The most common methods include functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), electroencephalography (EEG), and positron emission tomography (PET). The relationships between different neuroimaging methods are best understood in terms of each method's spatial and temporal resolution. Spatial resolution refers to the scale at which a method can differentiate between two segments of brain tissue. For example, fMRI has relatively good spatial resolution, potentially allowing a researcher to detect different levels of activation in two brain regions that are only several millimeters apart. In contrast, EEG has relatively poor spatial resolution, and one might only be able to make relatively crude distinctions about where a given signal is coming from (e.g., somewhere in the frontal cortex).
Similarly, temporal resolution refers to the ability of a method to resolve changes in the brain's function over time. A method with good temporal resolution (e.g., EEG) might be able to detect millisecond-by-millisecond changes in levels of activation. Conversely, a method with poor temporal resolution (e.g., PET) might be limited to changes that occur over several seconds or even minutes.
- i. Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI)
- ii. Positron Emission Tomography (PET)
- iii. Electroencephalography (EEG)
- iv. Other functional neuroimaging methods
i. Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI)
fMRI is currently the most widely-used technique in cognitive neuroscience. It provides a measure of the amount of blood flowing through a particular region of the brain at a given point in time. Because the amount of blood flowing to a region is roughly proportional to the amount of neuronal activity in that region, the fMRI signal is typically thought of as an index of the amount of cognitive activity occurring in different parts of the brain at any given point in time.
By comparing the amount of brain activation that occurs during one task relative to another (e.g., an experimental condition relative to a control condition), researchers can identify regions thought to be involved in the cognitive processes that distinguish between the two tasks. The oldest and most basic way of conducting such comparisons is to use a block design, in which participants perform a block of trials (totaling, say, 30-40 seconds) of one experimental condition, followed by an equivalent number of trials of another condition. By subtracting the activation during condition B from the activation during condition A, one can identify regions that differentiate between the two tasks.
While the block design is a powerful tool, it has several important limitations, and consequently is no longer used very often in fMRI studies. Instead, researchers have adopted a number of newer and more flexible techniques. Chief among these are rapid event-related fMRI designs, which allow researchers to study activation associated with individual types of trials, dramatically improving the effective temporal resolution of fMRI. A variant design known as the 'mixed' design combines aspects of blocked and event-related fMRI to provide estimates of both sustained and transient brain activation. Most recently, an increasing number of studies have begun to use parametric designs, which allow variables to be modeled in even more natural ways.
Although fMRI is a relatively expensive method, with scans typically costing several hundred dollars per hour, the relatively good spatial resolution (several millimeters) of the method combined with acceptable temporal resolution (1-2 seconds) make it an ideal choice for addressing many research questions of interest to psychologists and neuroscientists.
Huettel, S. A., Song, A. W., & McCarthy, G. (2004). Functional magnetic resonance imaging: Sinauer Associates Sunderland, Mass.
Friston, K. J., Holmes, A. P., Worsley, K. J., Poline, J. B., Frith, C. D., & Frackowiak, R. S. J. (1995). Statistical parametric maps in functional imaging: a general linear approach. Hum Brain Mapp, 2(4), 189-210.
Dale, A. M., & Buckner, R. L. (1997). Selective averaging of rapidly presented individual trials using fMRI. Human Brain Mapping, 5(5), 329-340.
Josephs, O., Turner, R., & Friston, K. (1997). Event-related fMRI. Human Brain Mapping, 5(4), 243-248.
Burock, M. A., Buckner, R. L., Woldorff, M. G., Rosen, B. R., & Dale, A. M. (1998). Randomized event-related experimental designs allow for extremely rapid presentation rates using functional MRI. Neuroreport, 9(16), 3735-3739.
Visscher, K. M., Miezin, F. M., Kelly, J. E., Buckner, R. L., Donaldson, D. I., McAvoy, M. P., et al. (2003). Mixed blocked/event-related designs separate transient and sustained activity in fMRI. Neuroimage, 19(4), 1694-1708.
Logothetis, N. K., & Wandell, B. A. (2004). Interpreting the BOLD signal. Annu Rev Physiol, 66, 735-769.
ii. Positron Emission Tomography (PET)
Although the use of PET to study human brain function preceded fMRI by several years, the two methods follow similar general principles. As with fMRI, PET allows images of brain activation to be acquired while participants perform tasks in a scanner, enabling researchers to quantify the amount of activation in different brain regions associated with different cognitive processes. Importantly, however, PET differs from fMRI in several respects. First, PET has poorer spatial and temporal resolution. Second, PET is invasive: unlike fMRI, use of PET requires injection of a radioactive tracer into participants' bloodstream. As the tracer decays, it emits energy that is detected by the scanner and used to construct the image of brain activation. Third, PET requires additional equipment and expertise in order to produce the tracer, which decays rapidly. Because of these methodological and practical limitations, PET is used relatively infrequently in modern cognitive neuroscience. The notable exception is that PET is still often used to study aspects of brain function that cannot be investigated with fMRI, e.g., levels of neurotransmitter binding. Such investigations are possible with PET because radiotracers can be designed that bind selectively to particular kinds of receptors (e.g., serotonin or dopamine).
Fox, P. T., Mintun, M. A., Reiman, E. M., & Raichle, M. E. (1988). Enhanced detection of focal brain responses using intersubject averaging and change-distribution analysis of subtracted PET images. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab, 8(5), 642-653.
Mintun, M. A., Fox, P. T., & Raichle, M. E. (1989). A highly accurate method of localizing regions of neuronal activation in the human brain with positron emission tomography. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab, 9(1), 96-103.
Petersen, S. E., Fox, P. T., Posner, M. I., Mintun, M., & Raichle, M. E. (1989). Positron emission tomographic studies of the processing of single words. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 1(2), 153-170.
Corbetta, M., Miezin, F. M., Dobmeyer, S., Shulman, G. L., & Petersen, S. E. (1991). Selective and divided attention during visual discriminations of shape, color, and speed: functional anatomy by positron emission tomography. Journal of Neuroscience, 11(8), 2383-2402.
iii. Electroencephalography (EEG)
EEG is used to study brain function by measuring electrical activity at the scalp. The principle behind EEG is that, as neuronal assemblies fire, they produce changes in the local electrical field that propagate outwards; these signals can be detected at the scalp using a mesh of electrodes. Although the spatial resolution of EEG is very poor (because the signal at any electrode reflects the summation of propagating electrical potentials throughout the brain), the temporal resolution of EEG is excellent, enabling researchers to study millisecond-by-millisecond changes in brain activation.
When EEG is used to study the brain's response to specific cognitive events (as opposed to measuring naturally-occurring activation over long intervals), the technique is typically referred to as ERP (Event Related or Evoked Response Potential).
Niedermeyer, E. (2005). Electroencephalography: Basic Principles, Clinical Applications, and Related Fields: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Luck, S. J. (2005). An Introduction to the Event-related Potential Technique: MIT Press.
iv. Other functional neuroimaging methods
Although used less frequently than the above three methods, other functional neuroimaging methods are also occasionally used in cognitive neuroscience research. These include magnetoencephalography (MEG) and optical imaging methods, which have a similar spatiotemporal profile to EEG, as well as electrophysiological recording (e.g., recording from individual neurons with an electrode). Although electrophysiological recording is an extremely powerful technique, and is a dominant method in animal studies of brain function, ethical considerations preclude its use in human populations under all but a small range of circumstances.
b. Computational modeling
Although computational modeling can refer to any kind of computational simulation used to model human cognition, cognitive neuroscientists typically use the term to refer specifically to neurally-inspired computational models. Such models, commonly known as connectionist models or neural networks, typically represent knowledge in a distributed rather than localized fashion: a given representation (e.g., of an object, name, or face) is spread across multiple nodes, mimicking the fact that most neural representations are thought to be supported by large-scale assemblies of neurons. The distributed nature of connectionist systems allows them to display many properties commonly observed in real biological systems, e.g., graceful degradation (the ability to preserve some amount of function in the face of damage to part of the system).
Part of the appeal in using connectionist models in cognitive neuroscience rather than the serial computational models found in many areas of cognitive psychology is the desire to demonstrate that complex cognition can be built out of relatively simple individual units (analogous to neurons or neuronal assemblies) that operate on known neurobiological principles. That is, other things being equal, connectionist simulations often have a biological plausibility that may make it easier to reconcile their results with those of other neurobiological approaches, or even to produce predictions that are testable using methods such as fMRI.
O'Reilly, R. C., & Munakata, Y. (2000). Computational Explorations in Cognitive Neuroscience: Understanding the Mind by Simulating the Brain: Bradford Book.
Rumelhart, D. E., & McClelland, J. L. (1986). Parallel distributed processing: explorations in the microstructure of cognition, vol. 2: psychological and biological models: MIT Press Cambridge, MA, USA.
Dayan, P., & Abbott, L. F. (2001). Theoretical neuroscience: computational and mathematical modeling of neural systems: MIT Press.
c. Lesion studies
One of the oldest and most powerful ways of studying brain function in humans is the lesion study, in which the cognitive task performance of individuals with specific kinds of brain damage is compared to that of healthy control participants. Unlike neuroimaging methods, which primarily enable correlational inferences, the logic of the lesion study is one of causal necessity. If damage to a particular part of the brain results in an inability to perform a specific task, one can reasonably conclude that that part of the brain (or perhaps, axon fibers passing through that area) is necessary for performing the task. A particularly powerful variant of the lesion study is the double dissociation, in which one demonstrates that region A results in the impairment of behavior X but not Y, whereas region B impairs behavior Y but not X. Cognitive neuroscientists often accord lesion data a special primacy over other results. For example, in cases where neuroimaging studies suggest a region may be involved in a particular function but damage to that region fails to produce task deficits, it is often unclear how to interpret the neuroimaging results, and deference may be given to lesion studies suggesting that the region is not essential for task performance.
While undeniably powerful, lesion studies suffer from two important limitations. First, they are 'natural' experiments; researchers cannot ethically induce lesions in humans, and studies therefore tend to have small and heterogeneous samples. Second, and related, the size, location, and shape of lesions is unpredictable and varies widely across individuals. Consequently, focal lesions that affect only one brain region are relatively rare, and it may be difficult to conclusively establish exactly what parts of the brain are responsible for a particular behavioral deficit.
In recent years, cognitive neuroscientists have begun to use a technique called transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to create temporary and reversible lesions in human participants. By creating a strong and spatially focused magnetic field at the surface of the brain, TMS temporarily 'knocks out' a brain region, thereby allowing one to determine which cognitive functions that region is necessary for. When used appropriately, TMS is harmless, and is relatively cheap compared to many neuroimaging techniques. Its main restriction is that it can only be used to study cortical function, since one cannot safely target subcortical regions.
Shallice, T. (1988). From Neuropsychology to Mental Structure: Cambridge University Press.
Lezak, M. D. (2004). Neuropsychological assessment: Oxford University Press New York.
Spreen, O., Strauss, E., & Sherman, E. M. S. (2006). A Compendium of Neuropsychological Tests: Administration, Norms, and Commentary: Oxford Univ Pr.
Walsh, V., & Cowey, A. (1999). Transcranial magnetic stimulation and cognitive neuroscience. J. Neurosci, 19, 5792-5801.
d. Combining methods
At the cutting edge of methodological innovation in cognitive neuroscience are attempts to combine multiple methods in order to overcome the spatial or temporal limitations that might affect one method in particular. Most commonly, fMRI is paired with another method such as computational modeling, EEG, or TMS to provide a more complete picture of brain function and support stronger inferences. For example, fMRI might be used to localize a specific part of the brain that can then be targeted more accurately with TMS. A patient scheduled to undergo resection of a particular brain region due to intractable epilepsy might be scanned with fMRI before and after the lesion. And the simultaneous use of fMRI and ERP allows researchers to add temporal detail to the results of fMRI studies, or conversely, to better localize the source of an ERP signal.
Brown, J. W., & Braver, T. S. (2005). Learned predictions of error likelihood in the anterior cingulate cortex. Science, 307(5712), 1118-1121.
Rushworth, M. F. S., Hadland, K. A., Paus, T., & Sipila, P. K. (2002). Role of the Human Medial Frontal Cortex in Task Switching: A Combined fMRI and TMS Study. Journal of Neurophysiology, 87(5), 2577-2592.
Kahn, I., Pascual-Leone, A., Theoret, H., Fregni, F., Clark, D., & Wagner, A. D. (2005). Transient Disruption of Ventrolateral Prefrontal Cortex During Verbal Encoding Affects Subsequent Memory Performance. Journal of Neurophysiology, 94(1), 688-698.
2. Applications to memory and language
Computational/cognitive neuroscience research on memory and language now constitutes a large portion of the total research output in these domains. A comprehensive overview of the many different applications to the study of memory and language is not possible here. Instead, this selective review highlights several areas within each domain that are currently attracting considerable research attention.
- a. Neurobiological and computational investigations of memory
- b. Neural and computational mechanisms of single-word reading
a. Neurobiological and computational investigations of memory
- i. General reviews
- ii. Constructive memory
- iii. Complementary memory systems
- iv. Subsequent memory effects
- v. Emotional memory
i. General Reviews
Tulving, E., & Craik, F. I. M. (2000). The Oxford Handbook of Memory: Oxford University Press US.
Gabrieli, J. D. E. (1998). Cognitive neuroscience of human memory. Annual review of psychology, 49, 87-115.
Milner, B., Squire, L. R., & Kandel, E. R. (2004). Cognitive Neuroscience and the Study of Memory. Cell, 119(5), 719-732.
ii. Constructive Memory
A dominant paradigm in memory research holds that memory is fundamentally a constructive process. That is, one's recollection of an event is not an infallible snapshot of that event, but depends on a range of constructive processes that occur at encoding or retrieval—e.g., strategic querying of memory, postretrieval monitoring, etc. The constructive memory framework has been extremely generative, leading to research on issues such as the relationship between long-term memory and mechanisms of executive control, the nature of failures of memory (e.g., false memory), and the relationship between memory for past events and the ability to imagine future events.
Moscovitch, M. (1994). Memory and working with memory: Evaluation of a component process model and comparisons with other models. Memory systems, 269-310.
Schacter, D. L., Norman, K. A., & Koutstaal, W. (1998). The cognitive neuroscience of constructive memory. Annual review of psychology, 49, 289-318.
Moscovitch, M., & Melo, B. (1997). Strategic retrieval and the frontal lobes: evidence from confabulation and amnesia. Neuropsychologia, 35(7), 1017-1034.
Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Kelley, W. M., Buckner, R. L., Cohen, N. J., Miezin, F. M., et al. (2001). Direct comparison of prefrontal cortex regions engaged by working and long-term memory tasks. Neuroimage, 14(1 Pt 1), 48-59.
Fletcher, P. C., & Henson, R. N. A. (2001). Frontal lobes and human memory. Brain, 124(5), 849-881.
Simons, J. S., & Spiers, H. J. (2003). Prefrontal and medial temporal lobe interactions in long-term memory. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 4(8), 637-648.
Addis, D. R., Wong, A. T., & Schacter, D. L. (2007). Remembering the past and imagining the future: common and distinct neural substrates during event construction and elaboration. Neuropsychologia, 45(7), 1363-1377.
Szpunar, K. K., Watson, J. M., & McDermott, K. B. (2007). Neural substrates of envisioning the future. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(2), 642.
Schacter, D. L., & Addis, D. R. (2007). The cognitive neuroscience of constructive memory: remembering the past and imagining the future. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 362(1481), 773-786.
Buckner, R. L., & Carroll, D. C. (2007). Self-projection and the brain. Trends Cogn. Sci, 11, 49-57.
Hassabis, D., & Maguire, E. A. (2007). Deconstructing episodic memory with construction. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(7), 299-306.
iii. Complementary memory systems
Memory researchers have long appreciated that there appear to be multiple memory systems in the brain. However, there is no consensus about which distinctions to draw. Should one distinguish between episodic and semantic memory systems, as early studies of lesion patients with amnesia suggested? Does procedural knowledge represent a distinct form of memory? What about emotional memory? Is recognition memory qualitatively different from episodic recollection? Are there spatially dissociable implicit and explicit memory systems, or do such distinctions reflect different modes of processing occurring within overlapping systems? Answers to such questions have been extensively reviewed by biologically-oriented researchers, e.g.,:
Squire, L. R. (2004). Memory systems of the brain: A brief history and current perspective. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 82(3), 171-177.
Schacter, D. L., Wagner, A. D., & Buckner, R. L. (2000). Memory systems of 1999. The Oxford handbook of memory, 627-643.
One distinction that is particularly relevant given the present focus on computational and cognitive neuroscience approaches to memory is the notion of complementary frontal and hippocampal memory system:
McClelland, J. L., McNaughton, B. L., & O’Reilly, R. C. (1995). Why there are complementary learning systems in the hippocampus and neocortex: Insights from the successes and failures of connectionist models of learning and memory. Psychological Review, 102(3), 419-437.
O'Reilly, R. C., & Norman, K. A. (2002). Hippocampal and neocortical contributions to memory: advances in the complementary learning systems framework. Trends Cogn Sci, 6(12), 505-510.
Norman, K. A., & O’Reilly, R. C. (2003). Modeling hippocampal and neocortical contributions to recognition memory: A complementary learning systems approach. Psychological Review, 110(4), 611-646.
The core feature of the model is a distinction between two brain systems: one, a slow-learning cortical system that represents information in a distributed manner and provides for long-term storage; the other, a hippocampal system that maintains discrete but temporary representations that allow binding and consolidation of disparate elements into coherent memory traces. O'Reilly and Norman (2002) presents a succinct recent description of the complementary systems model, which are implemented in an elegant neural network model in Norman and O'Reilly (2003).
iv. Subsequent memory effects
The subsequent memory effect refers to the finding that specific patterns of brain activation during the encoding phase of a memory task can predict whether an individual is subsequently able to remember an item or not. A common finding is that items that are subsequently remembered are associated with greater activation in frontal and medial temporal regions than items that are subsequently forgotten. Subsequent memory effects have been demonstrated using both fMRI and ERP, and can be disrupted using TMS. They hold across a wide range of stimuli, including words, pictures, narratives, etc. Thus, the subsequent memory approach provides a powerful methodological tool for studying memory, and provides a cardinal example of how novel methodological developments in cognitive neuroscience can guide and reshape theoretical investigations into memory and other domains.
Wagner, A. D., Schacter, D. L., Rotte, M., Koutstaal, W., Maril, A., Dale, A. M., et al. (1998). Building memories: Remembering and forgetting of verbal experiences as predicted by brain activity. Science, 281(5380), 1188-1191.
Brewer, J. B. (1998). Making Memories: Brain Activity that Predicts How Well Visual Experience Will Be Remembered. Science, 281(5380), 1185-1187.
Canli, T., Zhao, Z., Brewer, J., Gabrieli, J. D. E., & Cahill, L. (2000). Event-Related Activation in the Human Amygdala Associates with Later Memory for Individual Emotional Experience (Vol. 20, pp. 99-99): Soc Neuroscience.
Kahn, I., Pascual-Leone, A., Theoret, H., Fregni, F., Clark, D., & Wagner, A. D. (2005). Transient Disruption of Ventrolateral Prefrontal Cortex During Verbal Encoding Affects Subsequent Memory Performance. Journal of Neurophysiology, 94(1), 688-698.
Adcock, R. A., Thangavel, A., Whitfield-Gabrieli, S., Knutson, B., & Gabrieli, J. D. (2006). Reward-motivated learning: mesolimbic activation precedes memory formation. Neuron, 50(3), 507-517.
v. Emotional Memory
A large behavioral literature has found that emotion exerts a facilitatory influence on memory. Highly salient events are generally remembered more accurately than neutral events. Neurobiological data suggest this effect depends critically on the amygdala, a region critical for processing emotionally salient information.
Hamann, S. (2001). Cognitive and neural mechanisms of emotional memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5(9), 394-400.
LaBar, K. S., & Cabeza, R. (2006). Cognitive neuroscience of emotional memory. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 7(4), 54-64.
Adolphs, R., Tranel, D., & Buchanan, T. W. (2005). Amygdala damage impairs emotional memory for gist but not details of complex stimuli. Nature Neuroscience, 8, 512-518.
Dolcos, F., LaBar, K. S., & Cabeza, R. (2004). Interaction between the Amygdala and the Medial Temporal Lobe Memory System Predicts Better Memory for Emotional Events. Neuron, 42(5), 855-863.
Kensinger, E. A., & Corkin, S. (2004). Two routes to emotional memory: Distinct neural processes for valence and arousal. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(9), 3310-3315.
b. Neural and computational mechanisms of single-word reading
Neurobiological and computational approaches to the study of language increasingly span the full range of language phenomena, from single-word processing to narrative comprehension to syntactic structure. However, for both methodological and theoretical reasons, a disproportionate amount of research has focused on mechanisms of single-word reading. Methodologically, it has proven difficult to disentangle word-level effects from higher-order effects in neuroimaging studies. Theoretically, some researchers feel that understanding of single-word processing has not advanced sufficiently to warrant investigating higher-order processes just yet. The present review therefore focuses on computational and neurobiological investigations of single-word processing. In particular, we highlight visual word recognition as a domain in which computational and neurobiological approaches have led to substantial gains in understanding.
i. Computational perspectives
Plaut, D. C., McClelland, J. L., Seidenberg, M. S., & Patterson, K. (1996). Understanding normal and impaired word reading: computational principles in quasi-regular domains. Psychol Rev, 103(1), 56-115.
Coltheart, M., Rastle, K., Perry, C., Langdon, R., & Ziegler, J. (2001). DRC: a dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. Psychol Rev, 108(1), 204-256.
Dual Route models posits two separate pathways that guide visual word recognition: a lexical, or direct pathway, and a sublexical, or assembled pathway. Coltheart et al. (2001) have implemented the DRC model as a serial computational model. They argue that a dual route model can explain data that connectionist models cannot, e.g., the DRC implementation accounts for significantly more variance in human lexical decision and naming performance than competing connectionist models such as Plaut et al. (1996).
For a review of connectionist and DRC models situated within the broader context of the behavioral visual word recognition literature see:
Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., & Cortese, M. J. (2006). Visual word recognition: The journey from features to meaning (a travel update). In M. J. Traxler & M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics (pp. 285-376). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Academic Press.
ii. Neuroimaging reviews
Partly driven by methodological constraints, a great deal of neuroimaging research on language and reading has focused on the neural mechanisms of single-word processing. What neural pathways support the rapid recognition of visual word forms? Do different neural systems support access to different kinds of representations, e.g., phonological versus semantic attributes of words? How do the results of neuroimaging studies mesh with the large neuropsychological literature on reading disorders?
Although existing theoretical and computational models of visual-word recognition arguably remain underdetermined by the available neurobiological evidence, neuroimaging studies have made several important contributions to understanding of the mechanisms underlying reading.
Fiez, J. A., & Petersen, S. E. (1998). Neuroimaging studies of word reading. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 95(3), 914-921.
Turkeltaub, P. E., Eden, G. F., Jones, K. M., & Zeffiro, T. A. (2002). Meta-analysis of the functional neuroanatomy of single-word reading: method and validation. Neuroimage, 16(3 Pt 1), 765-780.
Vigneau, M., Beaucousin, V., Herve, P. Y., Duffau, H., Crivello, F., Houde, O., et al. (2006). Meta-analyzing left hemisphere language areas: Phonology, semantics, and sentence processing. Neuroimage, 30(4), 1414-32
Jobard, G., Crivello, F., & Tzourio-Mazoyer, N. (2003). Evaluation of the dual route theory of reading: a metanalysis of 35 neuroimaging studies. Neuroimage, 20(2), 693-712.
iii. The Visual Word Form Area
An ongoing controversy in the cognitive neuroscience of language concerns the role of a region of left inferior temporal cortex that has been dubbed the Visual Word Form Area (VWFA) due to its apparent sensitivity to orthographically regular word forms.
Cohen, L., Dehaene, S., Naccache, L., Lehericy, S., Dehaene-Lambertz, G., Henaff, M. A., et al. (2000). The visual word form area: spatial and temporal characterization of an initial stage of reading in normal subjects and posterior split-brain patients. Brain, 123(Pt 2), 291-307.
McCandliss, B. D., Cohen, L., & Dehaene, S. (2003). The visual word form area: expertise for reading in the fusiform gyrus. Trends Cogn Sci, 7(7), 293-299.
Price, C. J., & Devlin, J. T. (2003). The myth of the visual word form area. NeuroImage, 19, 473-481.
Cohen, L., & Dehaene, S. (2004). Specialization within the ventral stream: the case for the visual word form area. Neuroimage, 22(1), 466-476.
Gaillard, R., Naccache, L., Pinel, P., Clémenceau, S., Volle, E., Hasboun, D., et al. (2006). Direct Intracranial, fMRI, and Lesion Evidence for the Causal Role of Left Inferotemporal Cortex in Reading. Neuron, 50(2), 191-204.