ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2022
Parafoveal processing of repeated words during reading.
Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2022. 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.
- The processing of the definite article in Brazilian Portuguese: When 'the' carries gender and number marking.Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006) · 2026Article
- Practical issues in nuclear resonant vibrational spectroscopy for measuring biological samples: special problems, solutions and some perspectives.Applied spectroscopy reviews · 2025Article
- Parafoveal Processing of Orthography, Phonology, and Semantics during Chinese Reading: Effects of Foveal Load.Brain sciences · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In an eye-tracking experiment during reading, we examined the repetition effect, whereby words that are repeated in the same paragraph receive shorter fixation durations. Target words that were either high-frequency or low-frequency words and of which the parafoveal preview was either correct or with all letters replaced were embedded three times in the same paragraph. Shorter fixation times and higher skipping rates were observed for high-frequency compared to low-frequency words, words for which the parafoveal preview was correct versus incorrect, and as the word was being repeated more often. An interaction between frequency and repetition indicated that the reduction in fixation times due to repetition was more pronounced for low-frequency words. We also observed influences of word repetition on parafoveal processing, as repeated words were skipped more often. An interaction between parafoveal preview and repetition indicated an absent repetition effect when the preview was incorrect, but this effect was short lived, as it was restricted to the first fixation duration on the target word.
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.