Search Abstracts | Symposia | Slide Sessions | Poster Sessions
Cross-Linguistic Activation Likelihood Estimation Analysis of fMRI and PET Studies of Reading: Similarities and Differences in English and Chinese Word Processing
Poster Session D, Saturday, September 13, 5:00 - 6:30 pm, Field House
Chia-Fang Cheng1, Gina Humphreys2, Matthew A. Lambon Ralph3, Ya-Ning Chang4; 1Miin Wu School of Computing, National Cheng Kung University, Taiwan, 2MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, University of Cambridge, UK
Neuroimaging studies of word reading produce conflicting evidence of neural universality across languages, especially for languages with very different orthographic systems, such as Chinese and English (Nakamura et al., 2012; Rueckl et al., 2015; Siok et al., 2004; Tan et al., 2005). Specifically, it is unclear whether each language recruits a distinct “language-specific” neural network, or instead relies on a common language system, but with the strength of recruitment varying across subregions depending on the differing demands of each language. To test these opposing hypotheses, we conducted a meta-analysis to directly contrast Chinese and English word reading, for the first time, across orthographical, phonological and semantic processing. This direct-comparison approach provided a systematic evaluation of neural convergence and divergence. Specifically, we included 93 fMRI/PET studies of Chinese/English word reading (1990-2024) from PubMed. Inclusion criteria were: (1) studies reporting MNI or Talairach coordinates; (2) healthy adult native speakers; (3) single/two-character Chinese or multi-syllabic English word stimuli (excluding sentences or stories). A total of 223 contrasts were categorized into macro (all contrasts) and micro (orthographic/phonological/semantic processing) levels for cross-language comparison. GingerALE (Eickhoff et al., 2009) was used to estimate convergence across studies. Subtraction/conjunction analyses were conducted with p < 0.05 (10,000 permutation-corrected) and a minimum cluster volume of 100 mm3. The macro-level conjunction results indicated a universal reading network across both languages, showing a common underlying fronto-temporo-parietal reading system that was co-activated by both Chinese and English reading. Whilst the same underlying system was recruited by both languages, subregions of the network showed an increased likelihood for Chinese > English reading. Specifically, the subtraction analysis revealed more right hemisphere engagement in Chinese reading > English reading (e.g., right fusiform gyrus, STG), suggesting the involvement of additional cognitive source to process visuospatial and tonal information of Chinese words, as well as more recruitment of areas associated with semantic control (left IFG and pMTG) (Lambon Ralph et al., 2017). At the micro level, Chinese orthographic processing recruited visuospatial regions due to the stroke patterns of Chinese characters, while the medial frontal gyrus found in English possibly reflected higher orthographic complexity manipulated in the tasks. Chinese phonological processing additionally engaged semantic control regions (Lambon Ralph et al., 2017), supporting the deep integration of semantic and phonological processing in Chinese word reading shown in Chang and Lee (2018). English reading, on the other hand, was more likely to activate left-lateralized phonological areas (e.g., SMG, IPL, insula), consistent with its quasi-regular grapheme-to-phoneme structure. Indeed, at the micro-level, English phonological processing activated a broader fronto-temporal network, including right IFG, to support phonologically difficult tasks like pseudoword syllable judgment. Both languages revealed overlapping semantic processing regions with varying degrees of activation shaped by their linguistic features. Overall, our findings support a shared reading network across Chinese and English, consistent with the language universal view (Nakamura et al., 2012; Rueckl et al., 2015). Moreover, activation differences were modulated by language properties and task-related cognitive demands.
Topic Areas: Reading,