ArticleExperimental brain research2025
Reading words versus seeing font or handwriting style: a study of hemifield processing.
Article in Experimental brain research, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Tachistoscopic studies have established a right field advantage for the perception of visually presented words, which has been interpreted as reflecting a left hemispheric specialization. However, it is not clear whether this is driven by the linguistic task of word processing, or also occurs when processing properties such as the style and regularity of text. We had 23 subjects perform a tachistoscopic study while they viewed five-letter words in either computer font or handwriting. The task in one block was to respond if the word in the peripheral field matched a word just seen in the central field. In a second block with the same stimuli, the task was to respond if the style (handwriting or font) matched. We found a main effect of task: there was a right-field advantage for reading the word, but no field advantage for reporting the style of text. There was no effect of stimulus type and no interaction between task and stimulus type. We conclude that the field advantage for processing text is driven by the task, being specific for the processing the identity of the word and not the perception of the style of the text. We did not find evidence to support prior assertions that the type of text and its regularity influenced the field advantage during the word-reading task.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39825894What 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.