The word-reading and comprehension cortical regions are specific to their respective reading level: cross-level correlations were nonsignificant after FDR correction¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · associational r1–r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2018 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? None of the four word-reading ROIs correlated significantly with sentence comprehension after FDR correction, and the word-reading correlations remained significant when comprehension was covaried (e.g., LSTG: r = 0.712, p = 0.001). → Xia Zhichao 2018 q2 i? The comprehension ROIs did not correlate with word reading efficiency after FDR correction, and their comprehension correlations remained significant when word reading was covaried (RV1: r = 0.897, p < 0.001; LPHP: r = 0.646, p = 0.005). → Xia Zhichao 2018 (2)

Evidence¶

Xia Zhichao 2018¶

Xia Zhichao, Zhang Linjun, Hoeft Fumiko, Gu Bin, Gong Gaolang, Shu Hua. (2018). Neural Correlates of Oral Word Reading, Silent Reading Comprehension, and Cognitive Subcomponents. International Journal of Behavioral Development. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025417727872

q2 · i? · associational · r2

ROI analyses (n = 21) in the Results section testing whether word-reading regions were also correlated with comprehension (Aim 1) and specific to word reading (Aim 2). Nonsignificant results are reported without effect sizes.

"None of the correlations was significant after FDR correction (ps > 0.05, corrected). To test the specificity, we added the sentence comprehension score as a covariate of uninterest while calculating correlations between CT and word reading efficiency. The results showed that the correlations in all four ROIs remained significant (RSTG: r = 0.708, p = 0.001; LITG: r = 0.676, p = 0.003; LSTG: r = 0.712, p = 0.001; LSMG: r = 0.708, p = 0.001)."

Xia Zhichao 2018 (2)¶

Xia Zhichao, Zhang Linjun, Hoeft Fumiko, Gu Bin, Gong Gaolang, Shu Hua. (2018). Neural Correlates of Oral Word Reading, Silent Reading Comprehension, and Cognitive Subcomponents. International Journal of Behavioral Development. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025417727872

q2 · i? · associational · r1

ROI analyses (n = 21) in the Results section for the comprehension-defined regions, testing cross-level association and specificity with the other reading level as a covariate.

"we first examined whether these regions also correlated with word reading efficiency and found that all of the correlations were nonsignificant after FDR correction (ps > 0.05, corrected). Then, we added word reading efficiency as a covariate of uninterest when calculating the correlations between CT and sentence reading comprehension to examine the specificity. We found that both correlations remained significant (RV1: r = 0.897, p < 0.001; LPHP: r = 0.646, p = 0.005)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Word reading efficiency and sentence comprehension show distinct behavioral subcomponent profiles: word reading correlates with phonological subcomponents, comprehension with morphological awareness and orthography-semantic mapping — related
• Reading-defined regions uniquely predict distinct cognitive subcomponents: LSTG for phonetic representation, LSMG for phonological awareness, and LITG for orthography-phonology mapping — related
• In Chinese children aged 10-12, oral word reading efficiency is positively correlated with cortical thickness in the LSTG, LITG, LSMG and RSTG — related
• In Chinese children aged 10-12, silent sentence reading comprehension is positively correlated with cortical thickness in the left parahippocampus and right calcarine fissure — related
• For sentence comprehension regions, LPHP thickness is correlated with morphological awareness and RV1 thickness with orthography-semantic mapping — related