ArticleQuarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006)2025
Effects of central vs. peripheral attentional-oculomotor exercise on lexical processing.
Article in Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006), 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Past research from our lab has suggested visual demands in video games serve to exercise attentional-oculomotor (A-O) processing in a manner beneficial to reading. However, testing the effect of video games on reading typically requires long timeframes (e.g., multiweek training or years of accumulated video game experience). The current study manipulated within-experiment peripheral and central demands to evaluate the effects of A-O exercise on task performance. Our study included two tasks: an orthographic lexical decision task (OLDT), designed to optimise orthographic lexical processing, and a novel graphic-based health bar decision task (HBDT). In Experiment 1, the stimuli were presented centrally in one block and peripherally in another block to manipulate A-O exercise. We observed greater improvements in the peripheral-first than the central-first group, particularly for the OLDT. In Experiments 2 and 3, we focused on the OLDT, with the HBDT serving as the A-O exercise task, and observed improvements in both centrally and peripherally trained participants. We additionally observed, through analyses of word and bigram frequency, a double dissociation, whereby increased target word frequency was associated with faster target reaction times and improved error rates, whereas increased foil bigram frequency was associated with slower foil reaction times and worse error rates. Taken together, the experiments demonstrate a mechanism beyond simple task learning that drives reading improvements, and A-O exercise, even if movements are small, appears to play a role in the improvements observed. We suggest future research should further develop this paradigm and examine its utility for reading remediation in dyslexia.
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.