Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31974763›Full record

ArticleCognitive processing2020

Feature distinctiveness effects in language acquisition and lexical processing: Insights from megastudies.

Cynthia S Q Siew

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Cognitive processing, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Drivers of Lexical Processing and Implications for Early Learning.Annual review of developmental psychology · 2022
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Cynthia S Q SiewDepartment of Psychology, National University of Singapore, 9 Arts Link, Block AS4 #02-23, Singapore, 117570, Singapore. cynthia@nus.edu.sg.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3384-7374

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Semantic features are central to many influential theories of word meaning and semantic memory, but new methods of quantifying the information embedded in feature production norms are needed to advance our understanding of semantic processing and language acquisition. This paper capitalized on databases of semantic feature production norms and age-of-acquisition ratings, and megastudies including the English Lexicon Project and the Calgary Semantic Decision Project, to examine the influence of feature distinctiveness on language acquisition, visual lexical decision, and semantic decision. A feature network of English words was constructed such that edges in the network represented feature distance, or dissimilarity, between words (i.e., Jaccard and Manhattan distances of probability distributions of features elicited for each pair of words), enabling us to quantify the relative feature distinctiveness of individual words relative to other words in the network. Words with greater feature distinctiveness tended to be acquired earlier. Regression analyses of megastudy data revealed that Manhattan feature distinctiveness inhibited performance on the visual lexical decision task, facilitated semantic decision performance for concrete concepts, and inhibited semantic decision performance for abstract concepts. These results demonstrate the importance of considering the structural properties of words embedded in a semantic feature space in order to increase our understanding of semantic processing and language acquisition.

Indexed as

LanguageSemanticsHumansMemoryProblem SolvingRegression AnalysisAge of acquisitionFeature distinctivenessFeature production normsLexical decisionMegastudiesSemantic decision task

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.