ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2025
On the spatial limits of parallel word processing in reading.
Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of flanker size and flanker eccentricity on the spatial integration of orthographic information.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2026Article
- A Unified Neural Time Course for Words, Phrases, and Sentences: MEG Evidence from Parallel Presentation.Neurobiology of language (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2026Article
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
Various models of reading assume that information from up to five words is processed in parallel. Although there is evidence that foveal words can be processed simultaneously with directly adjacent words, it remains to be seen whether three words is the limit. To empirically test this, we designed a lexical decision flanker task with three flankers on each side of the target. In two experiments (offline (N = 49) and online (N = 98)), target words were either orthographically unrelated to all flankers or repeated in one out of six flanker positions. Stimuli were briefly presented, allowing us to assume that flanker effects, if any, would stem from simultaneous rather than sequential processing of the target and flankers. We observed flanker effects for flankers immediately adjacent to the target word. However, the relatedness of flankers in more remote positions did not impact recognition of the target. Our results suggest that word processing occurs for approximately three words in parallel, which is more than what some theories (e.g., E-Z Reader, Chinese Reading Model) suggest, but less than what some other theories (e.g., Glenmore, OB1-reader) suggest.
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.