SynthesisPsychonomic bulletin & review2025
Co-activation of phonological and orthographic codes in various modalities of language processing: A systematic and meta-analytic review.
Synthesis 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
Abstract
A vast amount of research has been dedicated to clarifying whether spoken word processing (listening) or production (speaking) is constrained by orthographic codes, and whether written word processing (reading) or production (writing) is constrained by phonological codes. Little work has explored what factors might modulate such cross-modality effects. In this paper, we first provided a comprehensive review of existing evidence, then conducted four meta-analyses to determine the size of cross-modality effects, and we explored potential factors that might modulate these effects. We identified robust orthographic effects on spoken word recognition (k = 93, corrected d = 0.61) and production (k = 34, corrected d = 0.44), and robust phonological effects on written word recognition (k = 178, corrected d = 0.49) and production (k = 28, corrected d = 0.35). Moderator analyses indicated that cross-modality effects may be modulated by the tasks used and by language nativeness of participants. These results shed light on our understanding of language processing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40610688What 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.