Data for: Will you read how I will read? Naturalistic fMRI predictors of emergent reading

Despite reading being an essential and almost universal skill in the
developed world, reading proficiency varies substantially from person to
person. To study why, the fMRI field is beginning to turn from single-word
or nonword reading tasks to naturalistic stimuli like connected text and
listening to stories. To study reading development in children just
beginning to read, listening to stories is an appropriate paradigm because
speech perception and phonological processing are important for, and are
predictors of, reading proficiency. Our study examined the relationship
between behavioral reading-related skills and the neural response to
listening to stories in the fMRI environment. Functional MRIs were
gathered in a 3T TIM-Trio scanner. During the fMRI scan, children aged
approximately 7 years listened to professionally narrated common short
stories and answered comprehension questions following the narration.
Analyses of the data used inter-subject correlation (ISC), and
representational similarity analysis (RSA). Our primary finding is that
ISC reveals areas of increased synchrony in both high- and low-performing
participants previously implicated in reading ability/disability. Of
particular interest are that several previously identified brain regions
(medial temporal gyrus (MTG), inferior frontal gyrus (IFG), inferior
temporal gyrus (ITG)) were found to “synchronize” across higher reading
ability participants, while poor performers showed desynchronization from
both proficient readers and other inefficient readers. Additionally, two
regions (superior frontal gyrus (SFG) and another portion of ITG) were
recruited by all participants, but their specific time course of
activation depended on reading performance. These analyses support the
idea that different brain regions involved in reading follow different
developmental trajectories that correlate with reading proficiency on a
spectrum rather than the usual dichotomy of poor readers versus strong
readers.