1. Reading is subserved by at least two brain mechanisms that are anatomically dissociable: one mechanism subserves assembled phonology and depends on the activity of the posterior part of the left superior temporal gyrus (STGp), whereas the second is responsible for addressed phonology and does not necessarily involve this region.
2. The contribution of STGp to reading appears to be based on its specialization for phonological analysis operations, involved in the processing of both spoken and written language.
3. Electrical stimulation of a distinct cortical patch located in the posterior portion of the superior temporal gyrus led to complete or partial inability to read pseudowords, but had no effect on reading aloud orthographically irregular (exception) words.
The article "Brain mechanisms for reading: the role of the superior temporal gyrus in word and pseudoword naming" presents a study that aims to test the neurological validity of a dual-route model of reading. The study uses electrocortical stimulation mapping and magnetic source imaging to examine the brain mechanisms involved in reading, specifically addressing phonological analysis operations. The authors demonstrate that reading is subserved by at least two brain mechanisms that are anatomically dissociable, with one mechanism subserving assembled phonology and depending on the activity of the posterior part of the left superior temporal gyrus (STGp), whereas the second is responsible for addressed phonology and does not necessarily involve this region.
The article provides a detailed description of the methods used in the study, including information on subjects, procedures, and data analysis. However, there are some potential biases and limitations to consider. For example, the sample size is small, with only four patients included in the study. Additionally, all patients were right-handed and had epilepsy, which may limit generalizability to other populations.
Furthermore, while the authors provide evidence supporting their dual-route model of reading, they do not explore alternative models or counterarguments. This may suggest a bias towards their own hypothesis. Additionally, there is no discussion of potential risks associated with electrocortical stimulation mapping or magnetic source imaging.
Overall, while this article provides valuable insights into brain mechanisms involved in reading and supports a dual-route model of reading, it is important to consider its limitations and potential biases when interpreting its findings. Further research with larger samples and diverse populations is needed to confirm these results and explore alternative models of reading.