ArticleCognitive processing2025
The generalizability issue in studying inflectional processing in real time: the potential effects of suffixal characteristics.
Article in Cognitive processing, 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
For both native speakers and second language (L2) learners, variation in the relative order of acquisition of inflectional morphemes has been shown in the literature. Previous studies employing the simple lexical decision task have also shown effects of suffixal characteristics on word recognition of both derived and inflected words such that some inflectional suffixes trigger whole-word processing while others contribute to decomposition. Additionally, evidence from the masked priming paradigm shows that suffixal characteristics affect the efficiency of morphological decomposition of derived words during early-stage processing. However, very little work has systematically examined the early stages of processing inflected words with different suffixes, leaving our understanding of the factors that impact the early-stage processing of inflected words incomplete at best. We argue that the overwhelming focus on the past tense -ed suffix in previous L2 studies risks exacerbating already serious generalizability issues in the realm of L2 research. Future studies would therefore do well to include and compare a wider range of inflectional suffixes, which may well require looking beyond English. This is essential for the field to make progress toward a more complete understanding of the processing of morphologically complex words.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40553208What 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.