ReviewTrends in cognitive sciences2019
Readers Are Parallel Processors.
Review in Trends in cognitive sciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 54 papers.
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
54 citing papers in PubMed.
- The transposed-word effect persists across text orientations in Chinese.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Article
- Simultaneous Cortical Responses to Multiple Written Words.Journal of cognitive neuroscience · 2026Article
- Orthographic processing was facilitated by phonologically but not semantically similar distractors: evidence from the visual structure judgment of Mandarin Chinese characters using the Flanker paradigm.Cognitive processing · 2026Article
- Comparing sentence superiority effects in deaf and hearing readers: The role of syntactic and visuo-attentional processing.Memory & cognition · 2026Article
- Effects of flanker size and flanker eccentricity on the spatial integration of orthographic information.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2026Article
- The impact of case changes on transposed-word effects.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2026Article
- The processing of multiple letters and multiple words in deaf adults.Memory & cognition · 2026Article
- Simultaneous cortical responses to multiple written words.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Negative effects of redundant targets.Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance · 2026Article
- Word length does not modulate the transposed-word effect in Chinese reading: Testing the OB1-Reader.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Article
- Word Trigram Frequency Predicts Failure to Detect Word Transpositions: Implications for Rational Inference in Reading.Open mind : discoveries in cognitive science · 2026Article
- Article
- The Nature of Noise Modulates Readers' Inferences for Transposition Errors of Reversible Words in Chinese Sentences.Journal of psycholinguistic research · 2025Article
- Fast hierarchical processing of orthographic and semantic parafoveal information during natural reading.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Reexamining Transposed-Word Effects in the Grammatical Decision Task.Experimental psychology · 2025Article
- The impact of relative word-length on effects of non-adjacent word transpositions.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025Article
- Article
- Readers may not integrate words strictly in the order in which they appear in Chinese reading.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025Article
- Word superiority and sentence superiority effects in post-cued letter-in-string identification.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2025Article
- Towards a model of eye-movement control in Chinese reading.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Reading research has long endorsed the view that words are processed strictly one by one. The primary empirical test of this notion is the search for effects from upcoming words on readers' eye movements during sentence reading. Here we argue that no conclusions can be drawn from the absence of such effects, and that the serial versus parallel processing debate cannot be resolved without treading beyond the methodological scope of tracking eye movements. Recent considerations of how the brain organizes linguistic input have sparked key predictions in- and outside the realm of text reading, with ensuing research revealing phenomena that complicate the serial processing perspective. A case is made for parallelism, along with new methods to infer the cognitive architecture driving reading.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31138515What 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.