ArticlePloS one2025
Lookback supports semi-parallel, just-in-time processing in second language written composition.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeCompetent written production results from semi-parallel processes that flow from content determination to finger movement. Information from upstream processes that is not used immediately is easily lost. This disruption is more likely when a writer composes in a language in which they lack expertise (L2) than when they compose in their first language (L1). Looking back into text-just-written may serve to maintain fluent processing. Our research determined whether patterns of hesitation (pausing) and lookback in L1 and L2 writing were consistent with this theory.
method39 university students composed argumentative texts by keyboard in L1 (English) and L2 (non-expert Spanish). Participants' keystrokes were logged, and eye movements were tracked to determine when they looked back into their already-written text, and what text was fixated. Analysis focused just on cases where hesitation occurred in the absence of error correction.
resultsStudents hesitated more frequently and for longer when writing in L2. Lookback in L2 was more common and deeper within existing text before and within words. Lookback at start of sentences was relatively frequent in both L1 and L2, but more extensive in L2.
conclusionFindings are consistent with lookback serving to refresh memory for what to write next.
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.