Differences in orthographic processing across species identified by a transparent computational model
Benjamin GagliD, Ivonne WeyersiD, Susanne EisenhaueriD, Christian J. FiebachiD, J. N. J. PauliiD, Michael ColomboiD, Damian ScarfiD, Johannes Christoph ZiegleriD, Jonathan GraingeriD, Onur GüntürküniD, Jutta L. MuelleriD
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.
02 /Specification & Classification
Click any tag to browse matching papers- Citations
- 2
- Organism
- Assay
- Research Focus
- Approach
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Understanding the Neuro-Cognitive Mechanisms of Orthographic Learning in Humans and Baboons: A Comparative Study Using Domain-Specific Mechanistic and Domain-General Connectionist Models
Janos Pauli, Benjamin Gagl·bioRxiv·May 16, 2025
- A potential cortical precursor of visual word form recognition in untrained monkeys
Rishi Rajalingham, Kohitij Kar, … James J. DiCarlo·Nature CommunicationsPeer-reviewed·Aug 4, 2020
- An Orthographic Prediction Error as the basis for efficient Visual Word Recognition
Benjamin Gagl, Jona Sassenhagen, … Christian J. Fiebach·NeuroImagePeer-reviewed·Mar 12, 2020
- Specifying precision in visual-orthographic prediction error representations for a better understanding of efficient reading
Wanlu Fu, Benjamin Gagl·Journal of Cognitive NeurosciencePeer-reviewed·Jan 1, 2025
- A compositional shape code explains how we read jumbled words
Aakash Agrawal, K.V.S. Hari, S. P. Arun·bioRxiv·Apr 16, 2020
- Orthographic training finetunes a neuronal letter position code in primate visual cortex
Aakash Agrawal, Shubhankar Saha, … Stanislas Dehaene·bioRxiv·Dec 2, 2025