ArticlePloS one2025
Analogical reasoning in first and second languages.
Article in PloS one, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study investigated how linguistic predictors such as word frequencies, the difficulty and creativity of problems, and the category of problems contribute to analogical reasoning in L1 and L2. This study also investigated how different types of similarities (i.e., perceptual and relational similarities) are processed in analogical reasoning. In Experiment 1, Japanese participants were asked to solve 100 multiple-choice A:B::C:D analogy problems (e.g., skeleton: bone:: tornado: wind) in their first language, Japanese (L1). In this experiment, participants also rated the difficulty and creativity of problems. In Experiment 2, Japanese participants completed the same tasks, but the problems were shown in their second language, English (L2). The results showed that problems presented in L1 elicited higher accuracies and faster response times than in L2. A significant interaction was found between languages (L1/L2) and the category of problems which indicates that finding a perceptual similarity (e.g., the shape image of word concepts) with verbal stimuli in L2 is more challenging than in L1. Moreover, our results on response times indicated that processing relations between words would be carried out in L1 without any specific instruction while it would not be completed in L2 possibly due to the cognitive demand related to lexical processing. Considering these results, it is advisable in an educational setting to provide L2 learners with enough time and explicit instruction on understanding word relationships when forming analogies.
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.