ArticleQuarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006)2024
Looking for immediate and downstream evidence of lexical prediction in eye movements during reading.
Article in Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating the compatibility of predictive coding as a model of linguistic predictability effects in reading.Frontiers in cognition · 2026Review
- Anticipatory prediction in older readers.Memory & cognition · 2025Article
- Prediction in reading: A review of predictability effects, their theoretical implications, and beyond.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Previous investigations of whether readers make predictions about the full identity of upcoming words have focused on the extent to which there are processing consequences when readers encounter linguistic input that is incompatible with their expectations. To date, eye-movement studies have revealed inconsistent evidence of the processing costs that would be expected to accompany lexical prediction. This study investigated whether readers' lexical predictions were observable during or downstream from their initial point of activation. Three experiments assessed readers' eye movements to predictable and unpredictable words, and then to subsequent downstream words, which probed the lingering activation of previously expected words. The results showed novel evidence of processing costs for unexpected input but only when supported by a plausible linguistic environment, suggesting that readers could strategically modulate their predictive processing. However, there was limited evidence that their lexical predictions affected downstream processing. The implications of these findings for understanding the role of prediction in language processing are discussed.
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.