ArticleBehavior research methods2020
Using information-theoretic measures to characterize the structure of the writing system: the case of orthographic-phonological regularities in English.
Article in Behavior research methods, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed.
- How we should measure orthographic depth: Or should we?Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Review
- All together now: Random Forests analysis reveals the joint impact of multiple statistical regularities on eye-movements during reading.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025Article
- Statistical learning in spelling and reading.Trends in cognitive sciences · 2025Review
- Information-theoretic measures for mapping regularities between orthography and phonology: A comprehensive quantification and validation in the Chinese writing system.Behavior research methods · 2025Article
- The role of context in the reading of English vowels: Evidence from ‹s› clusters.Glossa psycholinguistics · 2025Article
- HeLP: The Hebrew Lexicon project.Behavior research methods · 2024Article
- Modeling item-level variance of polysyllabic word reading in developing readers: Exploring semantically related child, word, and child-by-word predictors.Journal of experimental child psychology · 2024Article
- The English Sublexical Toolkit: Methods for indexing sound-spelling consistency.Behavior research methods · 2024Article
- Spelling-to-pronunciation transparency ratings for the 20,000 most frequently written English words.Behavior research methods · 2024Article
- Spelling-to-sound translation for English disyllables: Use of long and short vowels before single medial consonants.Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition · 2023Article
- Double trouble: Using spellings of different lengths to represent vowel length in English.Journal of experimental child psychology · 2023Article
- Number and Syllabification of Following Consonants Influence Use of Long Versus Short Vowels in English Disyllables.Journal of memory and language · 2023Article
- Predicting Later Spelling from Kindergarten Spelling in U.S., Australian, and Swedish Children.Scientific studies of reading : the official journal of the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading · 2023Article
- Unpacking the Unique Relationship Between Set for Variability and Word Reading Development: Examining Word- and Child-Level Predictors of Performance.Journal of educational psychology · 2022Article
- How you read affects what you gain: Individual differences in the functional organization of the reading system predict intervention gains in children with reading disabilities.Journal of educational psychology · 2022Article
- Order among chaos: Cross-linguistic differences and developmental trajectories in pseudoword reading aloud using pronunciation Entropy.PloS one · 2021Article
- Individual differences in learning the regularities between orthography, phonology and semantics predict early reading skills.Journal of memory and language · 2020Article
- Variations in the use of simple and context-sensitive grapheme-phoneme correspondences in English and German developing readers.Annals of dyslexia · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
It is generally well accepted that proficient reading requires the assimilation of myriad statistical regularities present in the writing system, including in particular the correspondences between words' orthographic and phonological forms. There is considerably less agreement, however, as to how to quantify these regularities. Here we present a comprehensive approach for this quantification using tools from Information Theory. We start by providing a glossary of the relevant information-theoretic metrics, with simplified examples showing their potential in assessing orthographic-phonological regularities. We specifically highlight the flexibility of our approach in quantifying information under different contexts (i.e., context-independent and dependent readings) and in different types of mappings (e.g., orthography-to-phonology and phonology-to-orthography). Then, we use these information-theoretic measures to assess real-world orthographic-phonological regularities of 10,093 mono-syllabic English words and examine whether these measures predict inter-item variability in accuracy and response times using available large-scale datasets of naming and lexical decision tasks. Together, the analyses demonstrate how information-theoretical measures can be used to quantify orthographical-phonological correspondences, and show that they capture variance in reading performance that is not accounted for by existing measures. We discuss the similarities and differences between the current framework and previous approaches as well as future directions towards understanding how the statistical regularities embedded in a writing system impact reading and reading acquisition.
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.