ArticleReading and writing2023
Context Facilitates the Decoding of Lexically Ambiguous Words for Adult Literacy Learners.
Article in Reading and writing, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
An estimated one-fifth of adults in the United States possess low literacy skills, which includes minimal proficiency in reading and difficulty processing contextual information. One way to study reading behavior of adults with low literacy is through eye movement studies; however, these investigations have been generally limited. Thus, the present study collected eye movement data (e.g., gaze duration, total time, regressions) from adult literacy learners while they read sentences to investigate online reading behavior. We manipulated the lexical ambiguity of the target words, context strength, and context location in the sentences. The role of vocabulary depth, which refers to the deeper understanding of a word in one's vocabulary, was also examined. Results show that adult literacy learners spent more total time reading ambiguous words compared to control words and vocabulary depth was significantly correlated with processing of lexically ambiguous words. Participants with higher depth scores were more sensitive to the complexity of ambiguous words and more effective at utilizing context compared to those with lower depth scores, which is reflected by more total time reading ambiguous words when more informative context was available and more regressions made to the target word by participants with higher depth scores. Overall, there is evidence to demonstrate the benefits of context use in lexical processing, as well as adult learners' sensitivity to changes in lexical ambiguity.
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.