ArticleBrain research2024
Memory representations are flexibly adapted to orthographic systems: A comparison of English and Hebrew.
Article in Brain research, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Across languages, speech unfolds in the same temporal order, constrained by the forward flow of time. But the way phonology is spatially mapped onto orthography is language-specific, ranging from left-to-right, right-to-left, and top-to-bottom, among others. While the direction of writing systems influences how known words are visually processed, it is unclear whether it influences learning and memory for novel orthographic regularities. The present study tested English and Hebrew speakers on an orthographic word-referent mapping task in their native orthographies (written left-to-right and right-to-left, respectively), where the onsets and offsets of words were equally informative cues to word identity. While all individuals learned orthographic word-referent mappings significantly above chance, the parts of the word that were most strongly represented varied. English monolinguals false alarmed most to competing foils that began with the same bigram as the target, representing word onsets most strongly. However, Hebrew bilinguals trained on their native orthography showed no difference between false alarm rates to onset and offset competitors, representing the beginning and ends of words equally strongly. Importantly, Hebrew bilinguals tested on English words displayed a more English-like false alarm pattern (although not a full switch), suggesting that memory biases adapt to the opposite directionality of encountered text while retaining traces of native language biases. These findings demonstrate that experience with different writing systems influences how individuals represent novel orthographic words, starting in the earliest stages of learning.
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.