Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40322619›Full record

ArticleJournal of cognition2025

Tracking the Effects of Eccentricity on the Integration of Orthographic Information From Multiple Words.

Christophe Cauchi, Martijn Meeter

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cognition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. On the spatial limits of parallel word processing in reading.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2025
    Article
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.

Christophe CauchiATILF, CNRS & Universitéde Lorraine, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4920-7160
Martijn MeeterLEARN! Research Institute. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5112-6717

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In adult readers, the perceptual span is approximately 14-15 characters to the right of the fixated word, corresponding to approximately 5° of visual angle. However, the extent of information processing within this area remains unclear. In the present study, we address this question using a novel adaptation of the flankers task in which the eccentricity of the flankers with respect to the central target word is increased. Fifty-four participants performed a lexical decision task on a central four-letter word flanked by two words of equal length. The flankers were either orthographically related (rock - rock) or unrelated (path - rock) to the target, and their eccentricity varied from 1.65° to 4.29° (center-to-center) in 0.33° steps. Participants' fixation was controlled by an eye-tracker using the fixation point as a trigger, and stimuli were displayed for 170 ms to avoid any eye movement. Results showed that the effect of unrelated flankers decreased with increasing eccentricity, while there was no effect of eccentricity of related flankers. In particular, the unrelated flankers affected central word processing up to the end of the parafovea. This observation provides evidence that the outer limits of the parafovea are engaged beyond prelexical processing. Lexical frequency influenced the magnitude of both reaction times (RTs) and accuracy rates, but did not interact with any variables. This novel adaptation of the flankers task has potential advantages for investigating the spatial integration of orthographic information across the perceptual span.

Indexed as

eccentricityflankers taskorthographic processingperceptual spanreading

Identifiers

PMID40322619
PMCPMC12047632

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.