Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33100507›Full record

ArticleJournal of memory and language2020

Interference patterns in subject-verb agreement and reflexives revisited: A large-sample study.

Lena A Jäger, Daniela Mertzen, Julie A Van Dyke, Shravan Vasishth

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of memory and language, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing 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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Using MoTR to Probe Agreement Processing in Russian.Open mind : discoveries in cognitive science · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. The Reading Signatures of Agreement Attraction.Open mind : discoveries in cognitive science · 2021
    Article
  18. Parsing Model and a Rational Theory of Memory.Frontiers in psychology · 2021
    Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

Lena A JägerDepartment of Linguistics and Institute for Computer Science, University of Potsdam, Germany.
Daniela MertzenDepartment of Linguistics, University of Potsdam, Germany.
Julie A Van DykeHaskins Laboratories, New Haven, CT, United States.
Shravan VasishthDepartment of Linguistics, University of Potsdam, Germany.

Funding

Retrieval interference in skilled and unskilled reading comprehsensionR01HD073288 · NICHD · HASKINS LABORATORIES, INC. · PI VAN DYKE, JULIE A · 2013 to 2017
$3.6M
NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD073288
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cue-based retrieval theories in sentence processing predict two classes of interference effect: (i)

Indexed as

agreementBayesian data analysiscue-based retrievalreflexivesreplicationsentence processingsimilarity-based interference

Identifiers

PMID33100507
PMCPMC7583648

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.