ReviewPsychonomic bulletin & review2022
From decomposition to distributed theories of morphological processing in reading.
Review 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 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Incipient Constituents: Phonesthemes Facilitate Word Processing in English.Open mind : discoveries in cognitive science · 2026Article
- Morpheme knowledge is shaped by information available through orthography.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025Article
- Measurement of age-of-acquisition in morphologically rich languages: Insights from Kannada and Filipino.Behavior research methods · 2025Article
- Children with lower language skill engage additional brain mechanisms in both hemispheres during sentence comprehension.Research square · 2025Article
- The bestersell effect: Nuances in positional encoding of morphemes in visual word recognition.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025Article
- Compositional processing in the recognition of Chinese compounds: Behavioural and computational studies.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025Article
- Cross-language morphological transfer in similar-script bilinguals.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2024Article
- Sand, Sandpaper, and Sandwiches: Evidence From a Masked Compound Priming Task in L1 and L2 Speakers of English.Journal of cognition · 2024Article
- Acquisition of orthographic forms via spoken complex word training.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2023Article
- Automatic morpheme identification across development: Magnetoencephalography (MEG) evidence from fast periodic visual stimulation.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- On the role of stems and prefixes in reading complex nonwords: Evidence from individuals with and without acquired dyslexia.Cognitive neuropsychologyArticle
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
The morphological structure of complex words impacts how they are processed during visual word recognition. This impact varies over the course of reading acquisition and for different languages and writing systems. Many theories of morphological processing rely on a decomposition mechanism, in which words are decomposed into explicit representations of their constituent morphemes. In distributed accounts, in contrast, morphological sensitivity arises from the tuning of finer-grained representations to useful statistical regularities in the form-to-meaning mapping, without the need for explicit morpheme representations. In this theoretically guided review, we summarize research into the mechanisms of morphological processing, and discuss findings within the context of decomposition and distributed accounts. Although many findings fit within a decomposition model of morphological processing, we suggest that the full range of results is more naturally explained by a distributed approach, and discuss additional benefits of adopting this perspective.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35595965What 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.