Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34635695›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2021

The contribution of semantics to the sentence superiority effect.

Stéphanie Massol, Jonathan Mirault, Jonathan Grainger

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. The Spatiotemporal Dynamics of Bottom-Up and Top-Down Processing during At-a-Glance Reading.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Letters, Words, Sentences, and Reading.Journal of cognition · 2024
    Review
  9. Article
  10. 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.

Stéphanie MassolLaboratoire d'Etude des Mécanismes Cognitifs, University of Lyon2, Lyon, France. stephanie.massol@univ-lyon2.fr.
Jonathan MiraultLaboratoire de Psychologie Cognitive, Centre National de Recherche Scientifique & Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France.
Jonathan GraingerLaboratoire de Psychologie Cognitive, Centre National de Recherche Scientifique & Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France.

Funding

European Research Council 742141
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

When a sequence of written words is presented briefly and participants are asked to report the identity of one of the words, identification accuracy is higher when the words form a correct sentence. Here we examined the extent to which this sentence superiority effect can be modulated by semantic content. The central hypothesis guiding this study is that the sentence superiority effect is primarily a syntactic effect. We therefore predicted little or no modulation of the effect by semantics. The influence of semantic content was measured by comparing the sentence superiority effect obtained with semantically regular sentences (e.g., son amie danse bien [her friend dances well]) and semantically anomalous but syntactically correct sentences (e.g., votre sac boit gros [your bag drinks big]), with effects being measured against ungrammatical scrambled versions of the same words in both cases. We found sentence superiority effects with both types of sentences, and a significant interaction, such that the effects were greater with semantically regular sentences compared with semantically anomalous sentences. We conclude that sentence-level semantic information can constrain word identities under parallel word processing, albeit with less impact than that exerted by syntax.

Indexed as

LanguagePsycholinguisticsReaction TimeReadingSemanticsAdolescentAdultAgedComprehensionFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID34635695
PMCPMC8505490

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.