Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40199809›Full record

ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2025

Word superiority and sentence superiority effects in post-cued letter-in-string identification.

Stéphanie Massol, Jonathan Grainger

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 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

2 authors.

Stéphanie MassolLaboratoire d'Étude des Mécanismes Cognitifs (EMC), Institut de Psychologie, Université Lumière Lyon 2, 5 Avenue Pierre Mendès France, 69676, Bron cedex, France. stephanie.massol@univ-lyon2.fr.
Jonathan GraingerCentre de Recherche en Psychologie et Neurosciences, CNRS & Aix-Marseille, Marseille, France.

Funding

Agence Nationale de la Recherche ANR-21-CE28-0003-01European Research Council ERC 742141
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We examined word superiority and sentence superiority effects in post-cued letter identification by embedding target letters in a letter string that was part of a sequence of letter strings separated by spaces. Experiment 1 compared letter identification in words versus random consonant strings (i.e., nonwords), thus involving three conditions: grammatical word (e.g., HE RUNS OVER THERE; the target being the letter V), ungrammatical word (e.g., THERE HE OVER RUNS), and nonwords (e.g., THPRN HJ GVTR LPDKS). Stimuli were displayed for 500 ms and post-masked. Letter-in-word identification was greater in the grammatical than in the ungrammatical word context (a sentence superiority effect, SSE). Moreover, letter-identification accuracy was greater in words than in nonwords (a word superiority effect, WSE). Experiment 2 used pronounceable pseudowords instead of nonwords and replicated the SSE and WSE seen in Experiment 1, with the size of the WSE being substantially reduced relative to Experiment 1. Experiment 3 tested letter identification in words, pseudowords, and nonwords, either in a grammatical or in an ungrammatical context. We again found a significant SSE on letter-identification accuracy combined with the standard pattern of the WSE (word > pseudoword > nonword). Finally, the classic WSE pattern was also found when stimuli were presented in isolation in Experiment 4.

Indexed as

AttentionCuesPattern Recognition, VisualPhoneticsReadingSemanticsHumansPerceptual MaskingPsycholinguisticsReaction TimeLetter-in-string identificationSentence superiorityWord superiority

Identifiers

PMID40199809
PMCPMC12058828

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.