ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2025
The bestersell effect: Nuances in positional encoding of morphemes in visual word recognition.
Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 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 confirmed stem morphemes (e.g., book) are identified in any position (e.g., in both bookmark and textbook) but prefixes and suffixes (e.g., re- in replay and -er in player) cannot be recognized when moved from their typical word-initial or word-final locations. However, English words with multiple affixes (e.g., unresolved, mindfulness) suggest there must be further nuance to the positional constraints imposed on affixes in the reading system to facilitate cases where affixes occur in atypical locations but still convey meaning. We used two lexical decision experiments (N = 90 native English-speaking participants each) to investigate the positional encoding of mid-embedded suffixes. In Experiment 1, transposed tri-morphemic nonwords ending in a chain of two suffixes (e.g., spitenessful [derived from spitefulness]), and transposed nonwords with string-initial suffixes (e.g., fulyouthness [derived from youthfulness]) were compared against orthographic controls (e.g., spitementdom/domyouthment). In Experiment 2, transposed tri-morphemic nonwords ending in a stem (e.g., bestersell [derived from bestseller]) and transposed nonwords with string-initial suffixes (e.g., erwalksleep [derived from sleepwalker]) were compared against orthographic controls (e.g., bestalsell/enwalksleep). Across both experiments, the results revealed a significantly larger morpheme transposition effect relative to controls for the mid-embedded compared with the string-initial suffix conditions. Items like bestersell activated the corresponding lexical representation of "bestseller" and made it more difficult to reject the target nonword, revealing that suffixes are not as strictly positionally encoded as previously assumed. These findings challenge existing predictions of positional requirements for affixes and provide evidence calling for more nuanced theoretical models of morphological processing.
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.