ArticlePloS one2025
The "Dogs' Catching Mice" conjecture in Chinese phonogram processing.
Article in PloS one, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In Chinese phonogram processing studies, it is not strange that phonetic radicals contribute phonologically to phonograms' phonological recognition. The present study, however, based on previous findings of phonetic radicals' proneness to semantic activation, as well as free-standing phonetic radicals' possession of triadic interconnections of orthography, phonology, and semantics at the lexical level, proposed that phonetic radicals may contribute semantically to the host phonograms' phonological recognition. We label this speculation as the "Dogs' Catching Mice" Conjecture. To examine this conjecture, three experiments were conducted. Experiment 1 was designed to confirm whether phonetic radicals, when embedded in phonograms, can contribute semantically to their host phonograms' phonological recognition. Experiment 2 was intended to show that the embedded phonetic radicals employed in Experiment 1 were truly semantically activated. Experiment 3, on top of the first two experiments, was devoted to demonstrating that the semantically activated phonetic radicals, when used as independent characters, can truly contribute semantically to their phonological recognition. Results from the three experiments combine to confirm the conjecture. The implication drawn is that phonetic radicals may have forged two paths in contributing to the host phonograms' phonological recognition: one is the regular "Cats' Catching Mice" Path, the other is the novel "Dogs' Catching Mice" Path.
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.