ArticleFrontiers in psychology2018
Written-Word Concreteness Effects in Non-attend Conditions: Evidence From Mismatch Responses and Cortical Oscillations.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It has been widely reported that concrete words have processing advantages over abstract words in terms of speed and efficiency of processing, a phenomenon known as the concreteness effect. However, little is still known about the early time-course of processing concrete and abstract words and whether this concreteness effect can still persist in conditions where attention is not focused on the words presented (automatic processing). This study aimed to shed light on these issues by examining the electrophysiological brain responses to concrete and abstract words. While participants were engaged in a non-linguistic color tracking task presented in the center of the monitor screen, matched Chinese concrete and abstract single-character words appeared within a passive oddball paradigm, out of the focus of attention. In calculating visual Mismatch Negativity (vMMN), Event-related potentials (ERPs) to words of the same semantic category were compared when these words were presented as deviants and standards. Before 320 ms, both abstract and concrete words yielded vMMN with left-lateralized distribution, suggesting similar verbal processing at an initial processing stage. After 320 ms, only concrete words additionally elicited vMMN with a central distribution. Time frequency (TF) analysis of the results also revealed larger theta power increase (200-300 ms) and theta power phase locking (200-450 ms) for concrete than for abstract words. Interestingly, there was more alpha power decrease for abstract than for concrete words from 300 to 450 ms. This may reflect the greater difficulty in processing abstract meaning. Taken together, our ERP and TF results point to the existence of different neural mechanisms underlying non-attentive processing of abstract and concrete words.
Indexed as
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.