Back

Feedforward computational models of vision do not explain expert neural processing of visual Braille in the human visual system

Cerpelloni, F.; Collignon, O.; Op de Beeck, H.

2026-04-16 neuroscience
10.64898/2026.04.14.718353 bioRxiv
Show abstract

The human visual system, and in particular the Visual Word Form Area (VWFA), adapts to process letters and words, even when the stimuli do not share canonical script features, like Braille. Here we set-up to compare the organization of typical orthographic and peculiar visual scripts such as Braille in computational models. In a first experiment, we looked at how Braille letters are represented in an illiterate Convolutional Neural Network (AlexNet) and compared them to Latin alphabet and to Line Braille, a custom line-based script. We observed a predisposition of the network, pre-trained to perform object recognition, for line-based scripts. This finding suggests an initial advantage of line junctions over Braille in processing scripts likely based on typical visual computations applied to the visual world. In a second experiment, we trained two benchmark neural network architectures (AlexNet, CORnet Z) to classify words in the Latin script (literacy acquisition) and then in the Braille script (expertise acquisition). We modelled the processing of reading visual Braille and explored the networks representations at different layers. We observed clustering of features based on the visual properties of the scripts and not by the networks expertise. Unlike human participants, the representations of linguistic categories do not converge to a model of the linguistic (orthographic, phonological, semantic) properties. Overall, the lack of alignment between the visual processing of the trained computational models and neural data recorded in expert humans suggests that the fundamental processing of reading cannot be fully explained by simple feed-forward visual processing of the script, but likely relies on additional mechanisms including interactive relations between the visual and linguistic systems.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 2%
14.6%
2
Journal of Vision
92 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.4%
3
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 18%
10.0%
4
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 7%
10.0%
5
Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
53 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
8.4%
50% of probability mass above
6
Neural Networks
32 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.3%
7
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 24%
3.6%
8
eneuro
389 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.6%
9
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 10%
2.1%
10
Communications Biology
886 papers in training set
Top 5%
2.1%
11
Nature Human Behaviour
85 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.9%
12
Frontiers in Neuroscience
223 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.7%
13
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 54%
1.7%
14
Vision Research
26 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
15
The Journal of Neuroscience
928 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.5%
16
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 35%
1.5%
17
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
119 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
18
Science Advances
1098 papers in training set
Top 22%
1.3%
19
Journal of Neurophysiology
263 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.3%
20
Cerebral Cortex
357 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.2%
21
Current Biology
596 papers in training set
Top 13%
0.9%
22
Cell Reports
1338 papers in training set
Top 32%
0.8%
23
Neural Computation
36 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.7%
24
Current Research in Neurobiology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
0.6%