ArticleJournal of cognition2024
Processing of Synonyms and Homographs in Bilingual and Monolingual Speakers.
Article in Journal of cognition, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hyper-speed meaning and form predictions: An EEG-based representational similarity analysis.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025Article
- How do multiple meanings affect word learning and remapping?Memory & cognition · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bilinguals have long-lasting experience with cross-language double-mappings (i.e., translation equivalents and interlingual homographs (or false friends)). Considering this, we examined whether bilinguals differ from monolinguals in within-language double-mapping (i.e., synonyms and homographs) processing. Across two experiments, we compared performances from Spanish monolinguals and Spanish-Basque bilinguals on a behavioral picture-word matching task. The words were all presented in Spanish, the native language of all participants. Participants responded to synonyms and homographs (both double-mappings) or single-mappings (controls). The reaction times in both experiments showed clear and significant costs in processing within-language double-mapping stimuli, as well as intrinsic differences in processing homographs versus synonyms. However, these effects did not differ between bilinguals and monolinguals. The present findings thus suggest that the bilinguals' extensive experience with cross-linguistic double-mappings does not transfer onto within-language double-mapping processing.
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.