Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38564586›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Using Monte-Carlo simulation to test predictions about the time-course of semantic and lexical access in reading.

Conrad Perry

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

Conrad PerryFaculty of Health and Medical Sciences, School of Psychology, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3429-0240

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

One of the main theoretical distinctions between reading models is how and when they predict semantic processing occurs. Some models assume semantic activation occurs after word-form is retrieved. Other models assume there is no-word form, and that what people think of as word-form is actually just semantics. These models thus predict semantic effects should occur early in reading. Results showing words with inconsistent spelling-sound correspondences are faster to read aloud if they are imageable/concrete compared to if they are abstract have been used as evidence supporting this prediction, although null-effects have also been reported. To investigate this, I used Monte-Carlo simulation to create a large set of simulated experiments from RTs taken from different databases. The results showed significant main effects of concreteness and spelling-sound consistency, as well as age-of-acquisition, a variable that can potentially confound the results. Alternatively, simulations showing a significant interaction between spelling-sound consistency and concreteness did not occur above chance, even without controlling for age-of-acquisition. These results support models that use lexical form. In addition, they suggest significant interactions from previous experiments may have occurred due to idiosyncratic items affecting the results and random noise causing the occasional statistical error.

Indexed as

ReadingSemanticsHumansLanguage

Identifiers

PMID38564586
PMCPMC10986942

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.