ArticlePsychological research2021
Does a mark make a difference? Visual similarity effects with accented vowels.
Article in Psychological research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Are letter features weighted asymmetrically during the early moments of lexical access? Evidence from masked priming in Serbian Cyrillic.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Article
- Just a mark: Diacritic function does not play a role in the early stages of visual word recognition.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2023Article
- The contributions of proficiency and semantics to the bilingual sentence superiority effect.Bilingualism (Cambridge, England) · 2023Article
- Breaking the boundaries: the power of ligatures in visual-word recognition.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- Letter identity and visual similarity in the processing of diacritic letters.Memory & cognition · 2021Article
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Visual similarity effects are pervasive in masked priming (e.g., T4BLE→TABLE; obiect→OBJECT; docurnent→DOCUMENT) and can be easily explained in terms of uncertainty regarding letter identity. However, recent research failed to show visual similarity effects for primes containing accented vowels (e.g., féliz-FELIZ behaves as fáliz-FELIZ [happy in Spanish]). This null effect has been taken to suggest that accented and non-accented vowels (e.g., é and e) activate completely distinct representations. However, priming effects are reinstated for non-accented vowels (e.g., facil-FÁCIL < fecil-FÁCIL [easy in Spanish]). Here we tested the hypothesis that the lack of priming effects for primes containing accented vowels is a simple consequence of the saliency of the accent marks. To investigate this issue, we conducted a masked priming lexical decision experiment in which we minimized the saliency of the diacritical marks by using primes containing the letter i (i.e., a letter that contains itself a glyph over the letter). We manipulated prime-target visual similarity and the presence/absence of an accented vowel in the prime (e.g., obieto-OBJETO vs. obaeto-OBJETO; obíeto-OBJETO vs. obáeto-OBJETO [object in Spanish]). Results showed a sizeable visual similarity effect regardless of whether the prime was accented or not. Therefore, these findings suggest that, at least in scripts like Spanish, there is nothing special about the processing of accented vs. unaccented vowels once the saliency of the diacritical marks is reduced.
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.