Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38956004›Full record

ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2025

Neural mechanism underlying preview effects and masked priming effects in visual word processing.

Xin Huang, Brian W L Wong, Hezul Tin-Yan Ng, Werner Sommer, Olaf Dimigen, Urs Maurer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

6 authors.

Xin HuangDepartment of Psychology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Sino Building 3/F, Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong, SAR, China.
Brian W L WongDepartment of Psychology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Sino Building 3/F, Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong, SAR, China.
Hezul Tin-Yan NgWofoo Joseph Lee Consulting and Counselling Psychology Research Centre, Lingnan University, Hong Kong, China.
Werner SommerInstitut für Psychologie, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Olaf DimigenInstitut für Psychologie, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany. olaf.dimigen@rug.nl.
Urs MaurerDepartment of Psychology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Sino Building 3/F, Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong, SAR, China. umaurer@cuhk.edu.hk.

Funding

German Academic Exchange Service DAADGerman Academic Exchange Service Project 57447990Research Grants Council, University Grants Committee G-CUHK409Research Grants Council, University Grants Committee General Research FundResearch Grants Council, University Grants Committee Germany/Hong Kong Joint Research SchemeResearch Grants Council, University Grants Committee RGC-GRF 14616418
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Two classic experimental paradigms - masked repetition priming and the boundary paradigm - have played a pivotal role in understanding the process of visual word recognition. Traditionally, these paradigms have been employed by different communities of researchers, with their own long-standing research traditions. Nevertheless, a review of the literature suggests that the brain-electric correlates of word processing established with both paradigms may show interesting similarities, in particular with regard to the location, timing, and direction of N1 and N250 effects. However, as of yet, no direct comparison has been undertaken between the two paradigms. In the current study, we used combined eye-tracking/EEG to perform such a within-subject comparison using the same materials (single Chinese characters) as stimuli. To facilitate direct comparisons, we used a simplified version of the boundary paradigm - the single word boundary paradigm. Our results show the typical early repetition effects of N1 and N250 for both paradigms. However, repetition effects in N250 (i.e., a reduced negativity following identical-word primes/previews as compared to different-word primes/previews) were larger with the single word boundary paradigm than with masked priming. For N1 effects, repetition effects were similar across the two paradigms, showing a larger N1 after repetitions as compared to alternations. Therefore, the results indicate that at the neural level, a briefly presented and masked foveal prime produces qualitatively similar facilitatory effects on visual word recognition as a parafoveal preview before a single saccade, although such effects appear to be stronger in the latter case.

Indexed as

Pattern Recognition, VisualPerceptual MaskingReadingRepetition PrimingAdultElectroencephalographyEvoked PotentialsEye-Tracking TechnologyFemaleHumansMaleYoung AdultMasked primingN1N250Preview effectSingle word boundary paradigm

Identifiers

PMID38956004
PMCPMC11845427

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.