ArticleJournal of memory and language2026
Listening to disfluent speech: Robust effect at processing may not extend to learning.
Article in Journal of memory and language, 2026. 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
Fillers, such as uh and um in English, are reliable predictors of upcoming novelty, and listeners harness these statistics to process disfluent speech efficiently. Predictive processing begets prediction error, and therefore it is possible that fillers impact word learning when they precede unexpected referents. However, the effect of fillers on word learning is unknown, especially over different time scales. Across five experiments, we sought to investigate the impact of fillers on language processing and learning, focusing on the relationship between fillers and predictive processing. Following exposure to novel words under fluent and disfluent learning conditions, we measured participants' word recognition at immediate vs. delayed testing. Participants consistently used fillers to predict upcoming novelty at exposure, but they tended to demonstrate similar retention of words taught in fluent and disfluent conditions, whether or not they made prediction errors. We frame our findings in the context of predictive processing and disfluency, concluding that disfluency shapes listeners' predictions but this effect does not carry over to word retention.
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.