Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41497528›Full record

ArticleOpen mind : discoveries in cognitive science2025

Predictability of the Retrieval Site Does Not Modulate Interference: Evidence From Reflexive Attraction.

Maayan Keshev, Kaiva Hinkle, Matthew Wagers, Brian Dillon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Open mind : discoveries in cognitive science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Maayan KeshevDepartment of Linguistics, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel.
Kaiva HinkleDepartment of English, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Matthew WagersDepartment of Linguistics, University of California, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3139-2380
Brian DillonDepartment of Linguistics, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Syntactic dependency formation in comprehension is subject to retrieval interference that occurs when comprehenders need to activate stored information in memory to form and interpret a linguistic dependency. For example, retrieving a subject phrase to attach it to the verb might result in agreement attraction errors. It remains unclear whether this interference arises as part of routine dependency formation or as part of a repair mechanism that is activated when predictive dependency formation fails (e.g., Wagers et al., 2009). For example, it has been argued that reflexive anaphors resist attraction in comprehension because number/gender features of unpredictable elements are not associated with a strong 'prediction error' signal that might trigger retrieval-based and error-prone repair processes (Parker & Phillips, 2017). We test a version of the "Error-driven Retrieval" hypothesis by examining the interaction between reflexive attraction and the predictability of the anaphor. In two reading time experiments and one offline interpretation experiment, we find that the predictability of a reflexive dependency does not modulate its susceptibility to interference effects in comprehension. We propose that attraction is better captured as part of routine retrieval processes and that the (in)sensitivity of reflexives to structurally irrelevant distractors should be explained through other mechanisms.

Indexed as

agreement attractionpredictionreflexive pronounsretrieval interference

Identifiers

PMID41497528
PMCPMC12768552

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.