Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36687990›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2022

Examining long-term repetition priming effects in spoken word recognition using computer mouse tracking.

Samantha E Tuft, Sara Incera, Conor T MᶜLennan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Samantha E TuftLanguage Research Laboratory, Department of Psychology, Cleveland State University, Cleveland, OH, United States.
Sara InceraMultilingual Laboratory, Department of Psychology, Eastern Kentucky University, Richmond, KY, United States.
Conor T MᶜLennanLanguage Research Laboratory, Department of Psychology, Cleveland State University, Cleveland, OH, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Language researchers in a variety of disciplines have used priming as a tool to investigate theoretical questions. In spoken word recognition, long-term repetition priming effects have been obtained across a number of behavioral tasks (e.g., lexical decision, shadowing). Repeated - primed - words are responded to more efficiently than new - unprimed - words. However, to our knowledge, long-term repetition priming effects have not been examined using computer mouse tracking, which would provide data regarding the time course of long-term repetition priming effects. Consequently, we compared participants' lexical decision responses using a computer mouse to primed and unprimed words. We predicted that participants would respond more efficiently to primed words compared to unprimed words. Indeed, across all of the dependent variables investigated (accuracy, reaction time, mouse trajectories) and across environments (in person, online), participants responded more efficiently to primed words than to unprimed words. We also performed additional exploratory analyses examining long-term repetition priming effects for nonwords. Across environments (in person, online), participants had more errors to primed nonwords than to unprimed nonwords, but there were no differences in reaction times and mouse trajectories. The current data demonstrating long-term repetition priming effects in mouse tracking are expected to motivate future investigations examining the time course of various long-term repetition priming effects for both words and nonwords.

Indexed as

long-term repetitionmouse trackingonline researchprimingspoken word recognition

Identifiers

PMID36687990
PMCPMC9850077

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.