Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33592075›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Incidental vocabulary learning with subtitles in a new language: Orthographic markedness and number of exposures.

Mercedes Pérez-Serrano, Marta Nogueroles-López, Jon Andoni Duñabeitia

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

3 authors.

Mercedes Pérez-SerranoDepartamento de Lengua Española y Teoría de la Literatura, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Comunidad de Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-3687-225X
Marta Nogueroles-LópezDepartamento de Lenguas Aplicadas, Universidad Antonio de Nebrija, Madrid, Comunidad de Madrid, Spain.
Jon Andoni DuñabeitiaCentro de Ciencia Cognitiva (C3), Facultad de Lenguas y Educación, Universidad Antonio de Nebrija, Madrid, Comunidad de Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-3312-8559

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The present study is set to explore the way the orthographic distributional properties of novel written words and the number of exposures to these words affect their incidental learning in terms of recall and recognition. To that end, two experiments were conducted using videos with captions. These videos included written nonwords (orthographically marked language-specific items) and pseudowords (orthographically unmarked items) as captions paired to the spoken targets, presented either in isolation (Experiment 1) or within sentences (Experiment 2). Our results consistently show that items containing legal letter combinations (i.e., pseudowords) are better recalled and recognized than those with illegal combinations (i.e., nonwords). Further analysis in the recall task indicate that frequency modulates the learning of pseudowords and nonwords in a different way. The learning of pseudowords increases linearly with repetitions, while nonwords are equally learned across frequencies. These differential effects found in the recall task do not show up in the recognition task. Although participants took more time to recognize nonwords in the recognition task, increased exposure to the items similarly modulated reading times and accuracy for nonwords and pseudowords. Additionally, higher accuracy rates were found in Experiment 2, which underscores the beneficial effect of supportive visual information.

Indexed as

LearningVocabularyFemaleHumansMaleYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID33592075
PMCPMC7919001

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.