1. fMRI and Reading Einar Mencl, Haskins Laboratories, New Haven, CT USA

2. Koby finishes 49 in 12 minutes; Einar finishes 61 in…?

3. Collaborators Haskins Laboratories: Ken Pugh, Rebecca Sandak, Stephen Frost, Dina Moore, Stephanie Mason, Leonard Katz, Jay Rueckl, Donald Shankweiler, Annette Jenner, Jun Ren Lee, Carol Fowler, Ram Frost Yale Center for the Study of Learning and Attention: Bennett Shaywitz, Sally Shaywitz, Karen Marchione, John, Holahan, Jack Fletcher Yale University/Diagnostic Radiology: John Gore, Todd Constable, Robert Fulbright, Pawel Skudlarski, Cheryl Lacadie

4. Haskins - 270 Crown Street, New Haven CT

5. Haskins - 300 George Street, New Haven CT

7. Haskins Folks (1)

8. Haskins Folks (2)

9. Behavioral Background 1) motor theory of speech perception; phonology 2) Evidence from fast priming: (Turvey, Lueketela, & Frost) a) toad - frog b) tode - frog c) towed - frog

10. Behavioral Background 1) motor theory of speech perception; phonology 2) Evidence from fast priming: (Turvey, Lueketela, & Frost) a) toad - frog b) tode - frog c) towed - frog 3) What is the best prime for a word? 1) fort - fort (identity)

11. Behavioral Background 1) motor theory of speech perception; phonology 2) Evidence from fast priming: a) toad - frog b) tode - frog c) towed - frog 3) What is the best prime for a word? 1) fort - fort 2) bowl - bowl?

12. Behavioral Background 1) motor theory of speech perception; phonology 2) Evidence from fast priming: a) toad - frog b) tode - frog c) towed - frog 3) What is the best prime for a word? 1) fort - fort 2) bowl - bowl? >>> boll - bowl (!) alternate pronounciations: howl, scowl

13. Slice Locations

14. Auditory versus Visual Sentence Task Constable, Pugh et al., (NeuroImage 2004) common print(red) speech(blue) R - L

15. An Initial Neurobiological Reading Model ANTERIOR Areas: inferior frontal gyrus (including Broca’s area) One Hypothesized Function: Articulatory recoding OCCIPITOTEMPORAL (VENTRAL) Areas: occipitotemporal juncture, middle and inferior temporal gyri Hypothesized Function: Linguistically structured memory- based fast word identification system (posterior aspect = “word-form” area) TEMPOROPARIETAL (DORSAL) Areas: supramarginal, angular, superior temporal (Wernicke’s) gyri Hypothesized Function: Mapping of orthographic to phonological and semantic representations (Pugh et al. 2000)

16. Auditory versus Visual Sentence Task Constable, Pugh et al., (NeuroImage 2004) common print(red) speech(blue) R - L temporoparietal occipitotemporal anterior

17. Case Mixing Exp. (design) Subjects get 10 scan runs, each 5:40 long Each run, they see 5 blocks of baseline trials: //*\ or /\\/ and 4 blocks of lexical decision trials: 1 high frequency unmixed case 2 low frequency unmixed case 3 high frequency mixed case 4 low frequency unmixed case charm or cHaRm

18. Case Mixing Exp. (design) 1 baseline /\*/ 2 HF unmixed case 3 LF unmixed case 4 HF mIxEd CaSe 5 LF mIxEd CaSe

19. Case Mixing Exp. (1) single-subject words - lines 1 baseline /\*/ 2 HF unmixed case 3 LF unmixed case 4 HF mIxEd CaSe 5 LF mIxEd CaSe

20. Case Mixing Exp. (2) single subject mixed - unmixed 1 baseline /\*/ 2 HF unmixed case 3 LF unmixed case 4 HF mIxEd CaSe 5 LF mIxEd CaSe

21. Case Mixing Exp. (12) across subject high frequency words mixed - unmixed 1 baseline /\*/ 2 HF unmixed case 3 LF unmixed case 4 HF mIxEd CaSe 5 LF mIxEd CaSe

22. Case Mixing Exp. (13) across subject low frequency words mixed - unmixed 1 baseline /\*/ 2 HF unmixed case 3 LF unmixed case 4 HF mIxEd CaSe 5 LF mIxEd CaSe

23. Case Mixing (14): Time effects in IFG

24. Case Mixing (15): Time effects in OT

25. Event-Related Designs, Two Analyses 1) Using a priori predicted response functions a) long intertrial interval designs b) Reference waveform regression 2) Estimating the actual response a) simple averaging b) delta function regression (FIR, finite impulse response) 3) Some examples

26. Simulated Hemodynamic Response (1) mean = 5000 sd = 100 effect size 0-1%, 0-50 points Gamma function tau=1.08; n=3; delay=3

27. Simulated Hemodynamic Response (2) Noise SD = 0 Noise SD = 10 Noise SD = 100

28. Event-Related Designs, Two Analyses 1) Using a priori predicted response functions a) long intertrial interval designs b) Reference waveform regression 2) Estimating the actual response a) simple averaging b) Delta Function Regression 3) Some examples

29. Long Intertrial Intervals, Single Condition cf. Ni et al., (2000) Event Regressor Simulated Data

30. Long Intertrial Intervals, Multiple Conditions Cond 1 Cond 2 Cond 1 Cond 2 Event Regressors Simulated Data

31. Multiple Regression (3): Reference Waveform Regression Friston et al. 1994 int C1 C2 Cond 1 Cond 2

32. Variability of the HRF Aguirre et al., 1998

33. Event-Related Designs, Two Analyses 1) Using a priori predicted response functions a) long intertrial interval designs b) reference waveform regression 2) Estimating the actual response a) simple averaging b) delta function regression 3) Some examples

34. Estimating the Response (1): Simple Averaging, No Overlap Cond 1 Cond 2

35. Estimating the Response (2): Simple Averaging, With Overlap Cond 1 Cond 2

36. Estimating the Response (3): Simple Subtraction with Overlap Dale & Buckner, 1997

37. Delta Function Regression (1) Meizin et al., 2000

38. Delta Function Regression (2) Cond 1 Cond 2 Event Regressors For Cond 1 Event Regressors For Cond 2 0 +1 +2 +3. +15 Peristimulus Time

39. Delta Function Regression (3) Cond 1 Cond 2___ Cond 1 Cond 2

40. Delta Function Regression (4): Evoked Responses Estimated Response Peristimulus Time Image Intensity

41. Delta Function Regression (5): Overlapping Responses Cond 1 Cond 2 Cond 1 Cond 2___

42. Estimated Response & Gamma Fits Delta Function Regression (6): Gamma Fitting Peristimulus Time Image Intensity

43. Estimated Response Peristimulus Time Image Intensity Baseline Timepoints [-1 to 0] Activation Timepoints [+3 to +8] Delta Function Regression (4): “Blocklet” Analysis

44. Compare & Contrast... Reference Waveform Regression 1) most designs are analyzable 2) stronger power 3) biased when reference <> actual Delta Function Regression 1) some designs not analyzable 2) weaker power 3) unbiased measure of temporal response

45. Primed Lexical Decision Experiment (intro) 5 trialtypes: orthographicphonological primetarget relationshiprelationship 1 O+P+ bribeTRIBE similarsimilar 2 O+P- couchTOUCH similardissimilar 3 NWO+ blissTRISS similarsimilar 4 NW brickTHILM dissimilardissimilar 5 UNRE lunchTRUNK dissimilardissimilar

46. LD/Prime Exp. (intro) 1 bribe - TRIBE 2 couch - TOUCH 3 bliss - TRISS 4 brick - THILM 5 lunch - TRUNK

47. LD/Prime Exp. (1) single subject unrelated prime lunch - TRUNK 1 bribe - TRIBE 2 couch - TOUCH 3 bliss - TRISS 4 brick - THILM 5 lunch - TRUNK

48. LD/Prime Exp. (2) raw time course 1 bribe - TRIBE 2 couch - TOUCH 3 bliss - TRISS 4 brick - THILM 5 lunch - TRUNK

49. LD/Prime Exp. (4) across subjects bribe - TRIBE 1 bribe - TRIBE 2 couch - TOUCH 3 bliss - TRISS 4 brick - THILM 5 lunch - TRUNK

50. LD/Prime Exp. (5) across subjects couch - TOUCH 1 bribe - TRIBE 2 couch - TOUCH 3 bliss - TRISS 4 brick - THILM 5 lunch - TRUNK

51. LD/Prime Exp. (6) across subjects couch - TOUCH vs bribe - TRIBE 1 bribe - TRIBE 2 couch - TOUCH 3 bliss - TRISS 4 brick - THILM 5 lunch - TRUNK

52. LD/Prime Exp. (6) across subjects couch - TOUCH vs bribe - TRIBE 1 bribe - TRIBE 2 couch - TOUCH 3 bliss - TRISS 4 brick - THILM 5 lunch - TRUNK

53. LD/Prime Exp. (1) across subject region timecourses 1 bribe - TRIBE 2 couch - TOUCH 3 bliss - TRISS 4 brick - THILM 5 lunch - TRUNK

54. titration of stimulus duration + house &&&&& 1000 msec 500/1500 msec 25/50/100 msec 1000 msec

55. titration of stimulus duration (2)

56. Interactivity: Phonology and Semantics (Strain et al. 1999) RT faster for hi-imageability words Imageability modulates Cons x Freq Triangle model exhibits same pattern Does the brain…?

57. Design Go/no-go naming in a block fMRI session Stimuli: Words (Consistency x Imageability x Frequency) Pseudowords

58. IFG = Consistency MTG =Imageability Region of interest analysis (Main effect) Frost, et al., 2005, Neuroreport

59. Cross-Linguistic Effects - Word Frequency …and implications for developmental dyslexia…