Back

Unique longitudinal contributions of sulcal interruptions to reading acquisition in children

Bouhali, F.; Dubois, J.; Hoeft, F.; Weiner, K. S.

2024-07-30 neuroscience
10.1101/2024.07.30.605574 bioRxiv
Show abstract

A growing body of literature indicates strong associations between indentations of the cerebral cortex (i.e., sulci) and individual differences in cognitive performance. Interruptions, or gaps, of sulci (historically known as pli de passage) are particularly intriguing as previous work suggests that these interruptions have a causal effect on cognitive development. Here, we tested how the presence and morphology of sulcal interruptions in the left posterior occipitotemporal sulcus (pOTS) longitudinally impact the development of a culturally-acquired skill: reading. Forty-three children were successfully followed from age 5 in kindergarten, at the onset of literacy instruction, to ages 7 and 8 with assessments of cognitive, pre-literacy, and literacy skills, as well as MRI anatomical scans at ages 5 and 8. Crucially, we demonstrate that the presence of a left pOTS gap at 5 years is a specific and robust longitudinal predictor of better future reading skills in children, with large observed benefits on reading behavior ranging from letter knowledge to reading comprehension. The effect of left pOTS interruptions on reading acquisition accumulated through time, and was larger than the impact of benchmark cognitive and familial predictors of reading ability and disability. Finally, we show that increased local U-fiber white matter connectivity associated with such sulcal interruptions possibly underlie these behavioral benefits, by providing a computational advantage. To our knowledge, this is the first quantitative evidence supporting a potential integrative gray-white matter mechanism underlying the cognitive benefits of macro-anatomical differences in sulcal morphology related to longitudinal improvements in a culturally-acquired skill.

Matching journals

The top 6 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.