ArticleCognition2024
Hijacking limitations of working memory load to test for composition in language.
Article in Cognition, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Although language depends on storage and composition, just what is stored or (de)composed remains unclear. We leveraged working memory load limitations to test for composition, hypothesizing that decomposed forms should particularly tax working memory. We focused on a well-studied paradigm, English inflectional morphology. We predicted that (compositional) regulars should be harder to maintain in working memory than (non-compositional) irregulars, using a 3-back production task. Frequency, phonology, orthography, and other potentially confounding factors were controlled for. Compared to irregulars, regulars and their accompanying -s/-ing-affixed filler items yielded more errors. Underscoring the decomposition of only regulars, regulars yielded more bare-stem (e.g., walk) and stem affixation errors (walks/walking) than irregulars, whereas irregulars yielded more past-tense-form affixation errors (broughts/tolded). In line with previous evidence that regulars can be stored under certain conditions, the regular-irregular difference held specifically for phonologically consistent (not inconsistent) regulars, in particular for both low and high frequency consistent regulars in males, but only for low frequency consistent regulars in females. Sensitivity analyses suggested the findings were robust. The study further elucidates the computation of inflected forms, and introduces a simple diagnostic for linguistic composition.
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.