ArticleBehavior research methods2024
Predicting high variability in imageability ratings across age groups and its influence on visual word recognition.
Article in Behavior research methods, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Reading Errors of Importance: The Role of Word Frequency and Relevance in Passage-Specific Comprehension.Reading & writing quarterly : overcoming learning difficulties · 2026Article
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
Abstract
Imageability, an important word characteristic in the psycholinguistic literature, is typically assessed by asking participants to estimate the ease with which a word can evoke a mental image. Our aim was to explore inter-rater disagreement in normative imageability ratings. We examined the predictors of variability around average imageability ratings for young, middle-aged and older adults (Study 1) and assessed its impact on visual word recognition performance in young adults (Study 2). Analyses of French age-related imageability ratings (Ballot et al., Behavior Research Methods, 54, 196-215, 2022) revealed that inter-rater disagreement around the average imageability value was critically high for most words within the imageability norms, thus questioning the construct validity of the average rating for the most variable items. Variability in ratings changed between age groups (18-25, 26-40, 41-59, and over 60 years) and was associated with words that are longer, less frequent, learnt later in life and less emotional (Study 1). To examine the consequences of elevated standard deviations around the average imageability rating on visual word recognition, we entered this factor in a hierarchical regression alongside classic lexico-semantic predictors. The effect of word-imageability on young adults' lexical decision times (Ferrand et al., Behavior Research Methods, 50, 1285-1307, 2018) remained significant after accounting for inter-rater disagreement in imageability ratings, even when considering the least consensual words (Study 2). We conclude that imageability ratings reliably predict visual word recognition performance in young adults for large datasets, but might require caution for smaller ones. Given imageability rating differences across adulthood, further research investigating age-related differences in language processing is necessary.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39656375What 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.