ArticleReading and writing2012
What lexical decision and naming tell us about reading.
Article in Reading and writing, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Cross-language phonological activation in bilingual visual word recognition: A meta-analysis.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025Pooled it
- Task dependent lexicality effects support interactive models of reading: a meta-analytic neuroimaging review.Neuropsychologia · 2015Pooled it
- Individual differences in visual word recognition: insights from the English Lexicon Project.Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance · 2012Trial
- The English Pseudoword Lexicon Project (EPLeP): A resource for investigating pseudoword processing.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
- Lesions Reveal Shared and Distinct Neurocognitive Bases of Oral Reading and Silent Word Recognition.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2026Article
- A fair lexical decision task for monolingual and multilingual Spanish-speakers.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Contextual assembly of lexical functions in large language models.Behavior research methods · 2025Article
- Love, laugh, life-the effect of empathy on the processing of emotion-label, emotion-laden and neutral abstract words.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Lexical decision times for nouns from the Croatian Psycholinguistic Database.Behavior research methods · 2025Article
- A large-scale database of Chinese characters and words collected from elementary school textbooks.Behavior research methods · 2024Article
- Proficiency versus lexical processing efficiency as a measure of L2 lexical quality: Individual differences in word-frequency effects in L2 visual word recognition.Memory & cognition · 2023Article
- Reading digital- versus print-easy texts: a study with university students who prefer digital sources.Psicologia, reflexao e critica : revista semestral do Departamento de Psicologia da UFRGS · 2022Article
- Rapid online assessment of reading ability.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Can Machines Find the Bilingual Advantage? Machine Learning Algorithms Find No Evidence to Differentiate Between Lifelong Bilingual and Monolingual Cognitive Profiles.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2021Article
- Individual differences in subphonemic sensitivity and phonological skills.Journal of memory and language · 2019Article
- The Trendelenburg Position and Cognitive Decline: A Case-Control Interventional Study Involving Healthy Volunteers.JMIR perioperative medicine · 2019Article
- The Contributions of Reading Fluency and Decoding to Reading Comprehension for Struggling Readers in the Fourth Grade.Reading & writing quarterly : overcoming learning difficulties · 2019Article
- Bayesian adaptive assessment of the reading function for vision: The qReading method.Journal of vision · 2018Article
- Individual Differences in the Neural and Cognitive Mechanisms of Single Word Reading.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2018Article
- Adults with poor reading skills: How lexical knowledge interacts with scores on standardized reading comprehension tests.Cognition · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The lexical decision (LD) and naming (NAM) tasks are ubiquitous paradigms that employ printed word identification. They are major tools for investigating how factors like morphology, semantic information, lexical neighborhood and others affect identification. Although use of the tasks is widespread, there has been little research into how performance in LD or NAM relates to reading ability, a deficiency that limits the translation of research with these tasks to the understanding of individual differences in reading. The present research was designed to provide a link from LD and NAM to the specific variables that characterize reading ability (e.g., decoding, sight word recognition, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension) as well as to important reading-related abilities (phonological awareness and rapid naming). We studied 99 adults with a wide range of reading abilities. LD and NAM strongly predicted individual differences in word identification, less strongly predicted vocabulary size and did not predict comprehension. Fluency was predicted but with differences that depended on the way fluency was defined. Finally, although the tasks did not predict individual differences in rapid naming or phonological awareness, the failures nevertheless assisted in understanding the cognitive mechanisms behind these reading-related abilities. The results demonstrate that LD and NAM are important tools for the study of individual differences in reading.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.