Back

Non-Human Recognition of Orthography: How is it implemented and how does it differ from Human orthographic processing

Gagl, B.; Weyers, I.; Eisenhauer, S.; Fiebach, C. J.; Colombo, M.; Scarf, D.; Ziegler, J. C.; Grainger, J.; Guentuerkuen, O.; Mueller, J. L.

2024-08-13 animal behavior and cognition
10.1101/2024.06.25.600635 bioRxiv
Show abstract

The ability to robustly recognize strings of letters, a cornerstone of reading, was observed in baboons and pigeons despite their lack of phonological and semantic knowledge. Here, we apply a comparative modeling approach to investigate the neuro-cognitive basis of orthographic decision behavior in humans, baboons, and pigeons, addressing whether phylogenetic relatedness entails similar underlying neuro-cognitive phenotypes. We use the highly transparent SpeechLess Reader (SLR) model, which assumes letter-string recognition based on a computational implementation of predictive coding, whereby orthographic decisions rely on prediction-error signals emerging from multiple representational levels: visual-pixel, letter, and letter-sequence representations. We investigate which representations species use during successful orthographic decision-making. We introduce multiple SLR variants, each including one or more prediction-error representations, and compare the simulations of each variant with orthographic decisions from individuals of three species after learning letter strings without meaning. Humans predominantly relied on letter-sequence-level representations, resulting in the highest task performance in behavior and model simulations. Baboons also relied on sequence-based representations, but in combination with pixel- and letter-level representations. In contrast, pigeons relied more on pixel and letter-level representations. These findings suggest that the orthographic representations used in orthographic decisions reflect phylogenetic distance: Humans and baboons use more similar representations than pigeons. Overall, the description of orthographic decisions based on a small set of representations and computations was highly successful in describing behavior, even for humans who mastered reading in its entirety.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.