ArticleJournal of cognition2025
New Insights Into Visual Word Recognition: Analyzing Error Distribution in Typical Readers.
Article in Journal of cognition, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Previous studies have examined error dynamics to investigate the origins of incorrect lexical access. The comparison of correct and incorrect reaction times (RTs) and the use of Conditional Accuracy Functions (CAFs) in lexical decision tasks have led to inconclusive findings. The present study aimed to clarify these inconsistencies by integrating both methodological approaches across a larger dataset. Our results revealed a pattern of fast errors for pseudowords in both measures, with faster error trials compared to correct trials and a marked decrease in accuracy for the fastest trials. This pattern is discussed within diffusion models of visual word recognition and cognitive control which suggest that pseudoword errors are associated with uninhibited automatic lexical activation. Word errors appeared relatively insensitive to RTs, as no significant difference was found between correct and error RTs, and the CAF displayed a more uniform pattern, but yet not homogeneous. Indeed, a pattern of slow errors was observed for both words and pseudowords in the CAFs, with less accuracy in the slowest RTs. An exploratory analysis suggested that this pattern of slow errors in the word condition might be characteristic of poor reading skills. These aspects are discussed in regard to visual word recognition models that postulate several factors to explain the occurrence of slow errors. Taken together, this research provides a framework that could be used for identifying cognitive markers of reading difficulties. Future research could explore how factors like word frequency or reading skills influence error dynamics, potentially informing interventions targeting lexical retrieval deficits.
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.