ArticleJournal of cognition2024
Semantic and Syntactic Predictions in Reading Aloud: Are Good Predictors Good Statistical Learners?
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.
- Neural Networks for Semantic and Syntactic Prediction and Visual-Motor Statistical Learning in Adult Readers With and Without Dyslexia.Neurobiology of language (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Article
- 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent research suggests that becoming a fluent reader may partially rely on a domain-general statistical learning (SL) mechanism that allows a person to automatically extract predictable patterns from the sensory input. The goal of the present study was to investigate a potential link between SL and the ability to make linguistic predictions. All previous studies investigated quite general levels of reading ability rather than the dynamic process of making linguistic predictions. We thus used a recently developed predictive reading task, which consisted of having participants read aloud words that were preceded by either semantically or syntactically predictive contexts. To measure the componential nature of SL, we used a visual and an auditory SL task (VSL, ASL) and the classic serial reaction time task (SRT). General reading ability was assessed with a reading speed/comprehension test. The study was conducted online on a sample of 120 participants to make it possible to explore interindividual differences. The results showed only weak and sometimes even negative correlations between the various SL measures. ASL correlated positively and predicted general reading ability but neither semantic nor syntactic prediction effects. Similarly, one of the SRT measures was significantly associated with reading level and reading speed but not with linguistic prediction effects. In sum, there is little evidence that domain-general SL is a good predictor of people's ability to make domain-specific linguistic predictions. In contrast, SL shows a weak but significant association with general reading ability.
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.