Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34467802›Full record

ArticleQuarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006)2022

Phonological precision for word recognition in skilled readers.

Mahmoud M Elsherif, Linda Ruth Wheeldon, Steven Frisson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Phonological precision for word recognition in skilled readers.Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006) · 2022
    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.

Mahmoud M ElsherifSchool of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0540-3998
Linda Ruth WheeldonDepartment of Foreign Languages and Translation, University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway.
Steven FrissonSchool of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

According to the lexical quality hypothesis, differences in the orthographic, semantic, and phonological representations of words will affect individual reading performance. While several studies have focused on orthographic precision and semantic coherence, few have considered phonological precision. The present study used a suite of individual difference measures to assess which components of lexical quality contributed to competition resolution in a masked priming experiment. The experiment measured form priming for word and pseudoword targets with dense and sparse neighbourhoods in 84 university students. Individual difference measures of language and cognitive skills were also collected and a principal component analysis was used to group these data into components. The data showed that phonological precision and NHD interacted with form priming. In participants with high phonological precision, the direction of priming for word targets with sparse neighbourhoods was facilitatory, while the direction for those with dense neighbourhoods was inhibitory. In contrast, people with low phonological precision showed the opposite pattern, but the interaction was non-significant. These results suggest that the component of phonological precision is linked to lexical competition for word recognition and that access to the mental lexicon during reading is affected by differing levels of phonological processing.

Indexed as

PhoneticsReadingHumansLanguagePattern Recognition, VisualReaction TimeSemanticsLexical quality hypothesisorthographyphonologysemanticsvisual word recognition

Identifiers

PMID34467802
PMCPMC9016675

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.