ArticleJournal of cognition2024
Orthographic and Phonological Code Activation in Deaf and Hearing Readers.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Neural associations between fingerspelling, print, and signs: An ERP priming study with deaf readers.Brain and language · 2025Article
- Processing of onomatopoeia by hearing-reduced students in sentence context: a study based on ERPs.Psychological research · 2025Article
- Bilateral Word Selectivity Gradients in the Visual Word Form System in Skilled Deaf Readers.Neurobiology of language (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Article
- Letters, Words, Sentences, and Reading.Journal of cognition · 2024Review
- 40 Years of Cracking the Orthographic Code: A Special Issue in Honour of Jonathan Grainger's Career.Journal of cognition · 2024Article
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
Abstract
Grainger et al. (2006) were the first to use ERP masked priming to explore the differing contributions of phonological and orthographic representations to visual word processing. Here we adapted their paradigm to examine word processing in deaf readers. We investigated whether reading-matched deaf and hearing readers (n = 36) exhibit different ERP effects associated with the activation of orthographic and phonological codes during word processing. In a visual masked priming paradigm, participants performed a go/no-go categorization task (detect an occasional animal word). Critical target words were preceded by orthographically-related (transposed letter - TL) or phonologically-related (pseudohomophone - PH) masked non-word primes were contrasted with the same target words preceded by letter substitution (control) non-words primes. Hearing readers exhibited typical N250 and N400 priming effects (greater negativity for control compared to TL or PH primed targets), and the TL and PH priming effects did not differ. For deaf readers, the N250 PH priming effect was later (250-350 ms), and they showed a reversed N250 priming effect for TL primes in this time window. The N400 TL and PH priming effects did not differ between groups. For hearing readers, those with better phonological and spelling skills showed larger early N250 PH and TL priming effects (150-250 ms). For deaf readers, those with better phonological skills showed a larger reversed TL priming effect in the late N250 window. We speculate that phonological knowledge modulates how strongly deaf readers rely on whole-word orthographic representations and/or the mapping from sublexical to lexical representations.
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.