ArticleMemory & cognition2026
Early access effects in English compound and pseudo-compound words.
Article in Memory & cognition, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although there is substantial experimental evidence that the morphemic constituents of compound words (e.g., snowball) are activated during compound word access, it is unclear exactly how the presence of constituents impacts word access. A series of experiments using a masked repetition primed lexical decision task investigates the role played by the morphology of compounds in word access. Semantically transparent compound words show consistent advantages relative to their frequency- and length-matched non-compound controls, but opaque compound words do not. For both kinds of compounds, the effect of repetition priming is the same for the compounds and their controls at short prime durations (50 and 100 ms). However, at long prime durations (300 ms), the compounds show more priming than their controls. In short, the compound advantage appears to be independent of the facilitation provided by short duration primes, but affected by long duration primes, and it appears to depend on the semantic transparency of the compound. Pseudo-compound words, such as carpet, provide an interesting comparison to compounds, because the language system cannot, a priori, determine whether they are compounds or not. Pseudo-compounds appear to be more difficult to process than their controls, and at long prime durations they show less priming than their controls. These results suggest that the compound advantage in processing arises relatively late in processing and is sensitive to the match between the semantics/morphology of a constructed compound interpretation and the required whole word.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41326949What 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.