ArticlePloS one2021
Incidental vocabulary learning with subtitles in a new language: Orthographic markedness and number of exposures.
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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Visual attention in bilingual instructional videos: effects of audiovisual congruency and subtitle language.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2026Article
- Effects of semantic clustering and repetition on incidental vocabulary learning.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- Want to quickly adapt to distorted speech and become a better listener? Read lips, not text.PloS one · 2022Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.