Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39802613›Full record

ArticleMetaphor and symbol2025

Processing Incongruity for Mental Events in Comics: Contours of Character Inferences.

Bien Klomberg, Klavdiia Fadeeva, Joost Schilperoord, Neil Cohn

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Metaphor and symbol, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Bien KlombergTilburg University.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6386-7785
Klavdiia FadeevaTilburg University.
Joost SchilperoordTilburg University.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1800-3600

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Visual narratives, like comics, at times show depictions of characters' imagination, dreams, or flashbacks, which seem incongruent with the ongoing primary narrative. Such "domain constructions" thus integrate an auxiliary domain (e.g. a dream) within the primary domain (the expected, physical storyworld), and may require readers to resolve seemingly non-co-referential figures as co-referential (e.g. when a character's dream shows that character as an animal). In three self-paced reading experiments, we investigate the processing and understanding of single vs. multiple domains in sequences with co-reference issues (Exp. 1) and whether graphic cues facilitate such domain switches (Exp. 2 and 3). Domain switches incurred greater updating costs but were comprehensible, with greater similarity across panels predicting faster processing, and comic reading experience affecting viewing times. The successful integration of fantasized agents which seem to lack co-reference implies that visual narrative comprehension goes beyond event and scene perception alone, but also involves proficiency in conventional constructions related to perspective-taking and inferencing.

Identifiers

PMID39802613
PMCPMC11716651

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.