Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38453776›Full record

ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2024

On the distinction between position and order information when processing strings of characters.

Stéphanie Massol, Jonathan Grainger

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Letters, Words, Sentences, and Reading.Journal of cognition · 2024
    Review
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

2 authors.

Stéphanie MassolLaboratoire d'Étude des Mécanismes Cognitifs, Université Lumière Lyon 2, Lyon, France. stephanie.massol@univ-lyon2.fr.
Jonathan GraingerLaboratoire de Psychologie Cognitive, Aix-Marseille University & CNRS, Marseille, France.

Funding

European Research Council 742141
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To probe the processing of gaze-dependent positional information and gaze-independent order information when matching strings of characters, we compared effects of visual similarity (hypothesized to affect gaze-centered position coding) with the effects of character transpositions (hypothesized to affect the processing of gaze-independent order information). In Experiment 1, we obtained empirical measures of visual similarity for pairs of characters, separately for uppercase consonants and keyboard symbols. These similarity values were then used in Experiment 2 to create pairs of four-character stimuli (four letters or four symbols) that could differ by substituting one character with a different character from the same category that was visually similar (e.g., FJDK-FJBK) or dissimilar (e.g., FJVK-FJBK). We also compared the effects of transposing two characters (e.g., FBJK-FJBK) with substituting two characters (e.g., FHSK-FJBK). "Different" responses were harder to make in the single substitution condition when the substituted character was visually similar, and this effect was not conditioned by character type. On the other hand, transposition costs (i.e., greater difficulty in detecting a difference with transpositions compared with double substitutions) were greater for letters compared with symbols. We conclude that visual similarity mainly affects the generic gaze-dependent processing of complex visual features, and that the encoding of letter order involves a mechanism that is specific to reading.

Indexed as

AttentionFixation, OcularPattern Recognition, VisualReadingAdultFemaleHumansMaleOrientationReaction TimeYoung AdultLetter-specific processingSame–different matchingTransposition effectsVisual similarity effects

Identifiers

PMID38453776

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.