ArticleMemory & cognition2026
Predictability effects during reading comprehension are not modulated by a visuospatial working memory load.
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
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Predictable words are processed more quickly than unpredictable words during reading, but how this predictability effect is modulated by working memory (WM) limitations is unclear. Two preregistered experiments tested whether the availability of visuospatial WM resources affects reading measures that are sensitive to predictability (gaze duration and skipping probability in Experiment 1, and self-paced reading time in Experiment 2) in native English speakers. The analyses of all measures revealed main effects of predictability and WM load. Their interaction was significant in Experiment 2 but not in Experiment 1. A follow-up analysis on relative reading times in Experiment 2 revealed main effects of predictability and WM load but no interaction between the two, replicating Experiment 1. The apparent interaction in Experiment 2 was likely due to the WM load speeding the overall reading times and masking the predictability effect. Taken together, these findings demonstrate a robust effect of predictability under a cognitively demanding task and suggest that visuospatial WM resources are not necessary for computing probabilities of upcoming words during reading.
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.