ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2025
Lexical integration of novel words learned through natural reading.
Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2025. 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.
- Tracking novel visual word learning via different methods with an original FPVS-EEG approach.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Lexical competition between newly acquired and already established representations of written words is considered a marker of word integration into the mental lexicon. To date, studies about the emergence of lexical competition involved mostly artificial training procedures based on overexposure and explicit instructions for memorization. Yet, in real life, novel word encounters occur mostly without explicit learning intent, through reading texts with words appearing rarely. This study examined the lexical integration of words learned through text reading. In Experiment 1, two groups of participants read a short book with embedded novel words. Only one group was asked to memorize the unfamiliar words. In the semantic categorization task, we found evidence for lexical competition with slower responses to existing orthographic neighbors (e.g., hublot) of the newly learned words (e.g., hubbot) than to a set of matched items. This effect was found independently of the group 24 h after initial exposure. In addition, a facilitation pattern was observed immediately after the reading session. However, post hoc analyses suggested that the competition effect was mainly driven by the data from the group receiving explicit learning instructions. Experiment 2 aimed to replicate the findings obtained in the group without explicit learning instructions. The results revealed the same pattern, characterized by a facilitatory effect immediately after the reading session and an inhibitory effect 24 h after the exposure. Overall, these results showed that lexical competition emerged from a naturalistic reading after a delay, regardless of whether participants were asked to learn novel words or not.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39715991What 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.