Trial reportPsychological research2025
How does vertical reading affect saccade programming and lexical processing in the Roman script?
Trial report in Psychological research, 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
Although computational models of eye movement control in reading have focused on horizontal text layouts, vertically oriented text is also encountered in daily life in the Roman script. To examine the interplay between saccade programming and lexical processing under vertical reading in the Roman script, we manipulated (1) the layout of words in a sentence (horizontal vs. vertical) and (2) word frequency (high vs. low). In the vertical layout, the words themselves remained in standard orientation but were arranged vertically (one below the other). Eye-movement measures at the sentence level (e.g., total reading time, number of fixations) showed a cost for the vertical arrangement, primarily reflected in longer fixation durations rather than a greater number of fixations. Critically, at the target-word level, the word-frequency effect -which increased in later eye-fixation measures (gaze duration, total time)- remained similar in size across both layouts. The additive pattern of word frequency and text layout, supported by Bayes factors, suggests that slower saccade programming in the vertical format does not substantially impact lexical processing. While lexical processing can influence saccade programming, delays in saccade programming do not, in turn, alter lexical processing-a pattern that constrains current models of eye movement control in reading.
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.