ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025
The lexicalization of emojis: the influence of frequency and functions of emojis in sentences on this process-a study based on eye movement tracking.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 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
The lexicalization of emojis reflects the dynamic evolutionary characteristics of the linguistic symbol system in the digital age. The influence of usage frequency and the different functions of emojis in sentences on this process is also a research topic worthy of exploration. This study employed eye-tracking technology, with 98 native Chinese speakers as participants, and selected Chinese sentences as experimental stimuli to compare the processing differences of emojis with different frequencies (high frequency and low frequency) and different functions in sentences (Pro-text emojis, Co-text emojis, and words) during sentence reading. The research results show that: Significantly affects the first fixation duration and total fixation duration. High frequency emojis have shorter durations for these two indicators; in contrast, low-frequency emojis require more time for recognition and integration due to visual and semantic factors. Pro-text emojis have a longer fixation duration, while Co-text emojis have a shorter total fixation duration. In the integration stage, Pro-text emojis take longer to integrate. This difference is related to the unique cognitive pattern of emojis, which requires converting images into linguistic components before integrating them into sentences for comprehension. Co-text emojis, on the other hand, take less time, which may be attributed to the priming effect triggered by the text preceding Co-text emojis. There is no significant difference in the number of saccades between emojis and Chinese text, indicating certain similarities between the two. In conclusion, lexicalized Pro-text emojis can be integrated into daily language communication; high frequency emojis have greater advantages in lexical recognition and processing; different functions of emojis in sentences affect their roles in text and processing mechanisms. Conducting research with Chinese as the experimental material provides a new perspective for the study of emoji processing.
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.