| Literature DB >> 22923086 |
Daniel J Roberts1, Anna M Woollams, Esther Kim, Pelagie M Beeson, Steven Z Rapcsak, Matthew A Lambon Ralph.
Abstract
Recent visual neuroscience investigations suggest that ventral occipito-temporal cortex is retinotopically organized, with high acuity foveal input projecting primarily to the posterior fusiform gyrus (pFG), making this region crucial for coding high spatial frequency information. Because high spatial frequencies are critical for fine-grained visual discrimination, we hypothesized that damage to the left pFG should have an adverse effect not only on efficient reading, as observed in pure alexia, but also on the processing of complex non-orthographic visual stimuli. Consistent with this hypothesis, we obtained evidence that a large case series (n = 20) of patients with lesions centered on left pFG: 1) Exhibited reduced sensitivity to high spatial frequencies; 2) demonstrated prolonged response latencies both in reading (pure alexia) and object naming; and 3) were especially sensitive to visual complexity and similarity when discriminating between novel visual patterns. These results suggest that the patients' dual reading and non-orthographic recognition impairments have a common underlying mechanism and reflect the loss of high spatial frequency visual information normally coded in the left pFG.Entities:
Keywords: foveal/parafoveal vision; fusiform gyrus; letter-by-letter reading; pure alexia; spatial frequency; ventral occipito-temporal cortex; visual recognition
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22923086 PMCID: PMC3792736 DOI: 10.1093/cercor/bhs224
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cereb Cortex ISSN: 1047-3211 Impact factor: 5.357
Figure 1.Summary reading data for the 20 patients included in the study for (A) the reading regression slope and (B) the mean reading speed as a function of word length. Error bars indicate standard error. Dashed line in (A) is control mean plus 2 standard deviations.
Demographic and background neuropsychological assessment for the 9 UK patients ordered left to right, from mild to severe, according to the severity of the reading impairment (slope of the word length effect in RTs)
| Maximum | Normal cut-off | EI | FW | KW | JWF | RK | TS | JW | JM | MS | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Demographics | |||||||||||
| Age | — | — | 40 | 80 | 44 | 54 | 63 | 57 | 59 | 67 | 70 |
| Sex | — | — | F | M | M | F | M | M | M | M | F |
| Handedness | RH | RH | RH | LH | RH | RH | RH | RH | LH | ||
| Years of education | — | — | 13 | 11 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 11 | 10 | 10 |
| Lesion aetiology | Stroke | Stroke | Stroke | Stroke | Stroke | Tumor resection | Stroke | Tumor resection | Stroke | ||
| Lesion volume (cc) | 12.11 | No scan | No scan | 92.89 | 39.93 | 162.69 | 93.27 | 14.34 | 99.34 | ||
| Visual field loss | RUQ | RHH | RHH | RHH | RHH | RHH | RHH | RUQ | RHH | ||
| Working memory | |||||||||||
| Digit span | |||||||||||
| Forward (12) | — | 5 | 9 | 8 | 8 | 6 | NT | 8 | 7 | 12 | 10 |
| Backward (12) | — | 2 | 5 | 4 | 7 | 5 | NT | 4 | 4 | 7 | 6 |
| Visual processing | |||||||||||
| VOSP | |||||||||||
| Incomplete letters | 20 | 16 | 20 | 17 | 20 | 17 | 20 | 19 | 19 | 20 | 16 |
| Silhouettes | 30 | 15 | 21 | 21 | 19 | 24 | 20 | 22 | 25 | 18 | 19 |
| Object decision | 20 | 14 | 19 | 17 | 20 | 19 | 15 | 18 | 17 | 17 | 16 |
| Progressive silhouettes | 20 | 15 | 16 | 20 | |||||||
| Dot counting | 10 | 8 | 10 | 9 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 9 | |
| Position discrimination | 20 | 18 | 20 | 19 | 20 | 16 | 20 | 18 | 20 | 20 | 19 |
| Number location | 10 | 7 | 9 | 10 | 10 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 |
| Cube analysis | 10 | 6 | 10 | 9 | 4 | 10 | 6 | 10 | 9 | 10 | 7 |
| Semantic processing | |||||||||||
| Naminga | 64 | 62 | 62 | 62 | 59 | ||||||
| Camel and Cactus (pictures)a | 64 | 52 | 61 | 59 | 61 | 52 | 52 | 61 | |||
| Word–picture matchinga | 64 | 62 | 64 | 64 | NT | NT | NT | 63 | 64 | 63 | 62 |
| 96 Synonyms | 96 | 90 | 91 | 96 | 94 | 90 | 93 | 93 | |||
| Phonological processing | |||||||||||
| PALPA 2: Phonological judgment | |||||||||||
| Total | 72 | 64 | 68 | 71 | 71 | 72 | 72 | 68 | 71 | 72 | 71 |
| Same | 36 | 34 | 32 | 35 | 35 | 36 | 36 | 36 | 36 | 36 | 36 |
| Different | 36 | 30 | 36 | 36 | 36 | 36 | 36 | 32 | 35 | 36 | 35 |
| PALPA 15: Rhyme judgment | 60 | 43 | 47 | 57 | 59 | 58 | 57 | 56 | 57 | 56 | 53 |
| Phoneme segmentationb | |||||||||||
| Total | 96 | 76 | 94 | 96 | 87 | 96 | 87 | 96 | 94 | 91 | |
| Addition | 48 | 39 | 46 | 48 | 40 | 48 | 48 | 48 | 46 | 45 | |
| Subtraction | 48 | 37 | 48 | 48 | 47 | 48 | 39 | 48 | 48 | 46 | |
Note: Bold denotes abnormal performance. VOSP, Visual Object and Space Perception battery; PALPA, Psycholinguistic Assessment of Language Processing in Aphasia (Kay et al. 1992); NT, not tested; RHH, right homonymous hemianopia; RUQ, right upper quadrantanopia; ND, no field defect.
aTests from Bozeat et al. (2000).
bTests from Patterson and Marcel (1992).
Demographic and background neuropsychological assessment for the 11 AZ patients ordered left to right, from mild to severe, according to the severity of the reading impairment (slope of the word length effect in RTs)
| Maximum | Normal cut-off | 130 | 171 | 174 | 141 | 135 | 170 | 169 | 128 | 177 | 153 | 125 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Demographics | |||||||||||||
| Age | — | — | 80 | 78 | 63 | 72 | 80 | 60 | 72 | 54 | 62 | 69 | 65 |
| Sex | — | — | M | M | M | M | F | M | M | M | M | M | M |
| Handedness | — | — | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | L | R | R |
| Years of education | — | — | 18 | 14 | 18 | 14 | 12 | 14 | 14 | 18 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| Lesion etiology | — | — | Stroke | Stroke | Stroke | Stroke | Stroke | Stroke | Stroke | Stroke | Stroke | Stroke | Stroke |
| Lesion volume (cc) | 37.23 | 38.33 | 5.15 | 29.8 | 29.46 | 56.82 | 74.42 | 97.69 | 51.91 | 42.11 | 2.19 | ||
| Visual field loss | ND | RUQ | RHH | RHH | RUQ | RUQ | RHH# | RUQ | RUQ | ND | ND | ||
| Working memory | |||||||||||||
| Digit span forward | 12 | 5.8 | 9 | 10 | 10 | 7 | 9 | 11 | 6 | 10 | 9 | 7 | |
| Visual/orthographic processing | |||||||||||||
| Visual field lossa | — | — | |||||||||||
| Letter case matching (PALPA 19, 20) | 52 | 51 | 52 | 51 | 52 | 52 | 51 | 52 | 52 | 52 | 52 | 52 | |
| Letter discrimination in words/non-words (PALPA 21) | 30 | 27 | 30 | 30 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 29 | 28 | 28 | 28 | 29 | |
| Visual lexical decision (PALPA 25) | 60 | 58 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 58 | 59 | 58 | 59 | 51 | |||
| Semantic processing | |||||||||||||
| BNT | 60 | 53 | 58 | 58 | 53 | 57 | 55 | ||||||
| PPT (pictures) | 52 | 49 | 51 | 52 | 52 | 51 | 52 | 51 | 52 | 50 | 51 | ||
| Word–picture matching (PALPA 48) | 40 | 39 | 40 | 40 | 39 | 40 | 39 | 39 | 40 | 39 | 40 | 40 | |
| Auditory synonym judgment (PALPA 49) | 20 | 19 | 20 | 19 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 19 | 20 | 20 | |
| Phonological processing | |||||||||||||
| Rhyme judgment | 40 | 36 | 39 | 39 | 40 | 40 | 39 | 40 | 37 | 39 | 38 | 39 | |
| Phoneme segmentation | 80 | 71 | 71 | 78 | 79 | 77 | 79 | 80 | 77 | 79 | |||
| Minimal pair discrimination | 40 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 38 | 40 | 40 | 40 | 40 | 40 | 39 | 40 | |
Note: Bold denotes abnormal performance. PALPA, Psycholinguistic Assessment of Language Processing in Aphasia (Kay et al. 1992); BNT, Boston Naming Test (Goodglass and Kaplan 1983); PPT, Pyramids and Palm Trees Test (Howard and Patterson 1992); RHH, right homonymous hemianopia; RUQ, right upper quadrantanopia; ND, no field defect.
aIn addition to extensive left vOT damage, CT scan in this patient also indicated a right dorsomedial occipital lesion that was associated with a left inferior quadrant visual field defect.
Patients contributing to each of the analyses in this study
| Analysis | Patients | |
|---|---|---|
| Lesion mapping | 18 | 130, 171, 174, EI, 141, 135, 170, 169, 128, 177, 153, JWF, RK, 125, TS, JW, JM, MS |
| Spatial frequency | 8 | JM, EI, FW, MS, JW, TS, KW, JWF |
| Naming | 17 | 130, 171, 174, EI, 135, 170, 169, 128, KW, 177, JWF, RK, 125, TS, JW, JM, MS |
| Word–picture matching | 14 | 130, 174, EI, 170, 169, 128, KW, JWF, RK, 125, TS, JW, JM, MS |
| Checkerboards | 20 | 130, 171, 174, EI, 141, FW, 135, 170, 169, 128, KW, 177, 153, JWF, RK, 125, TS, JW, JM, MS |
| Kanji characters | 17 | 130, 171, 174, EI, FW, 170, 169, 128, KW, 177, JWF, RK, 125, TS, JW, JM, MS |
Figure 2.(A) fMRI activation during a reading task in 15 normal subjects (words—checkerboards, P < 0.05; FDR), (B) lesion overlap maps for the total group of 18 patients for whom neuroimaging studies were available, and (C) for the mild (n = 5), (D) moderate (n = 5), and (E) severe (n = 8) subgroups. Color bars indicate the number of patients with damage to each region. In order to display the course of the fusiform gyrus more clearly, the axial slices have been rotated −15 degrees from the AC-PC line.
Figure 3.Result of the VLSM analysis showing the association between damage to the fusiform gyrus and an increased word length effect, as measured by the normalized slopes. Due to low statistical power attributable to relatively small sample size and spatially homogeneous lesion distribution, the maps are thresholded at P < 0.05 uncorrected for multiple comparisons.
Figure 4.Average spatial-frequency sensitivity curves for (A) left and (B) right eyes for the 8 patients tested.
Figure 5.Average correct RTs for (A) object naming (n = 17) and (B) WPM (n = 14) tasks for the patient subgroups split by severity (reading regression slope) and controls. Error bars indicate standard error. Numbers refer to accuracy rates (percent correct).
Figure 6.Example checkerboard stimuli for (A) simple condition and (B) complex condition with similar and dissimilar foils.
Figure 7.Example kanji stimuli for (A) simple condition and (B) complex condition with similar and dissimilar foils.
Figure 8.Average correct RTs for the checkerboard (n = 20) and kanji (n = 17) tasks for patient subgroups split by severity (reading regression slope) and controls. Error bars represent standard error.