ReviewJournal of cognition2024
Letters, Words, Sentences, and Reading.
Review 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 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- The impact of case changes on transposed-word effects.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2026Article
- How time shapes letter position flexibility: Testing positional uncertainty and open bigram accounts.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025Article
- Reexamining Transposed-Word Effects in the Grammatical Decision Task.Experimental psychology · 2025Article
- The Character Position Encoding of Parafoveal Semantic Previews Is Flexible in Chinese Reading.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- On lexical and sublexical contributions to transposed-phoneme priming effects.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2025Article
- Word superiority and sentence superiority effects in post-cued letter-in-string identification.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2025Article
- Open-bigrams as orthographic processing units in Arabic: Evidence from the flanking-letters lexical-decision task.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this personal, and therefore highly selective, review article I summarize work performed in collaboration with numerous colleagues on how skilled adult readers perform identification tasks and speeded binary decision tasks involving single letters and visually presented words and sentences. The overarching aim is to highlight similarities in the processing performed at three key levels involved in written language comprehension (in languages that use an alphabetic script): letters, words, and sentences. The comparisons are made using behavioral data obtained with: i) speeded (response-limited) binary decision tasks; and ii) the effects of simultaneous surrounding context on letter and word identification using both data-limited (non-speeded) and response-limited procedures. I then propose a general framework that combines the three levels of processing, and that connects core processes at each level with the processing involved in tasks designed to reflect those core processes, and I end by suggesting possible avenues for future research with an aim to extend this general framework.
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.