Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37179852›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2023

Rëâdīńg wõrdš wîth ōrńåmêńtš: is there a cost?

Jon Andoni Duñabeitia, Manuel Perea, Melanie Labusch

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Jon Andoni DuñabeitiaCentro de Investigación Nebrija en Cognición (CINC), Universidad Antonio de Nebrija, Madrid, Spain.
Manuel PereaCentro de Investigación Nebrija en Cognición (CINC), Universidad Antonio de Nebrija, Madrid, Spain.
Melanie LabuschCentro de Investigación Nebrija en Cognición (CINC), Universidad Antonio de Nebrija, Madrid, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Recent research has reported that adding non-existent diacritical marks to a word produces a minimal reading cost compared to the intact word. Here we examined whether this minimal reading cost is due to: (1) the resilience of letter detectors to the perceptual noise (i.e., the cost should be small and comparable for words and nonwords) or (2) top-down lexical processes that normalize the percept for words (i.e., the cost would be larger for nonwords). Methods: We designed a letter detection experiment in which a target stimulus (either a word or a nonword) was presented intact or with extra non-existent diacritics [e.g., Results: Although the task involved lexical processing, with responses being faster and more accurate for words compared to nonwords, we found only a minimal advantage in error rates for intact stimuli versus those with non-existent diacritics. This advantage was similar for both words and nonwords. Discussion: The letter detectors in the word recognition system appear to be resilient to non-existent diacritics without the need for feedback from higher levels of processing.

Indexed as

diacriticsreadingtext clarityword recognitionword superiority effect

Identifiers

PMID37179852
PMCPMC10172505

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.