2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.116727
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An orthographic prediction error as the basis for efficient visual word recognition

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

2
53
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
2

Relationship

2
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 28 publications
(55 citation statements)
references
References 79 publications
2
53
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Meanwhile, FWs induced more activation in the posterior part of the left FG, while SCs elicited more activation in the left middle occipital gyrus. These findings support the prediction error hypothesis, which means that when a stimulus is recognized as potentially meaningful but is not predicted by its visual word form efficiently, it may elicit increased brain activity ( Price and Devlin, 2011 ; J Zhao et al, 2019 ; Gagl et al, 2020 ). In line with previous findings in alphabetic languages, the varied activation patterns also revealed the corresponding relationship between functional gradient of the left FG and similarity to RWs, indicating the attuning to orthographic regularities of the reader’s language in the course of learning to read ( Vinckier et al, 2007 ).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 78%
“…Meanwhile, FWs induced more activation in the posterior part of the left FG, while SCs elicited more activation in the left middle occipital gyrus. These findings support the prediction error hypothesis, which means that when a stimulus is recognized as potentially meaningful but is not predicted by its visual word form efficiently, it may elicit increased brain activity ( Price and Devlin, 2011 ; J Zhao et al, 2019 ; Gagl et al, 2020 ). In line with previous findings in alphabetic languages, the varied activation patterns also revealed the corresponding relationship between functional gradient of the left FG and similarity to RWs, indicating the attuning to orthographic regularities of the reader’s language in the course of learning to read ( Vinckier et al, 2007 ).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 78%
“…Neither language‐specific (Kuperberg & Jaeger, 2016) nor general theories of predictive coding (Friston, 2005) have discussed restrictions of predictive processing to certain levels of representation to the best of our knowledge. Therefore, this possibility should be explored further in future studies (see Gagl et al., 2020, for a recent example from pre‐lexical orthographic processing).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Neither language-specific (Kuperberg and Jaeger, 2016) nor general theories of predictive coding (Friston, 2005) have discussed restrictions of predictive processing to certain levels of representation to the best of our knowledge. Therefore, this possibility should be explored further in future studies (see Gagl et al, 2020, for a recent example from pre-lexical orthographic processing).…”
Section: Implications For Models Of Predictive Codingmentioning
confidence: 99%