ArticleNeuropsychology2023
Autocorrection if→of function words in reading aloud: A novel marker of Alzheimer's risk.
Article in Neuropsychology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Language switches can be monitored but not fully controlled: Eye-tracking evidence for syntax-driven language control.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Article
- Syntax drives default language selection in bilingual connected speech production.Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition · 2025Article
- Estimating the rate of failure to notice function word errors in natural reading.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025Article
- Language switching and speaking a nondominant language challenge executive control: Preliminary data for novel behavioral markers of Alzheimer's risk in Spanish-English bilinguals.Neuropsychology · 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe present study investigated cognitive mechanisms underlying the ability to stop "autocorrect" errors elicited by unexpected words in a read-aloud task, and the utility of autocorrection for predicting Alzheimer's disease (AD) biomarkers.
methodCognitively normal participants (total
resultsParticipants produced more autocorrect errors in paragraphs with dominant than with nondominant targets, and with function than with content targets. Cognitively normal participants with high CSF Tau/Aβ42 (i.e., an AD-like biomarker profile) produced more autocorrect total errors than those below the Tau/Aβ42 threshold, an effect also significant with dominant-function targets alone (e.g., saying
conclusionsDifficulty stopping autocorrect errors is associated with biomarkers indicating preclinical AD, and reveals promise as a diagnostic tool. Greater vulnerability of function over content words to autocorrection in individuals with AD-like biomarkers implicates monitoring and attention (rather than semantic processing) in the earliest of cognitive changes associated with AD risk. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
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.