ArticleMemory & cognition2026
Comparing sentence superiority effects in deaf and hearing readers: The role of syntactic and visuo-attentional processing.
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
Reading requires the integration of linguistic and visuo-attentional information to support efficient word identification within context. The sentence superiority effect (SSE) illustrates this integration, showing that words are recognized more accurately when embedded in a grammatical sentence than in a scrambled sequence. While well established in hearing readers, the extent to which deaf readers exhibit this effect remains unclear. The present study examined the SSE in 18 deaf and 20 hearing adults using the Rapid Parallel Visual Presentation (RPVP) paradigm. Participants identified target words presented within grammatical or scrambled four-word sequences. Both groups showed a significant SSE, indicating that deaf readers, like hearing readers, can exploit syntactic context to enhance word recognition. The SSE even tended to be larger in the deaf group, suggesting greater reliance on top-down syntactic and contextual cues. Hearing participants moreover showed the expected central position advantage, whereas deaf readers exhibited more homogeneous performance across positions, consistent with a broader and more evenly distributed allocation of visual attention. Overall, the findings reveal both shared and distinct reading mechanisms across groups, highlighting the adaptive nature of reading strategies in deaf individuals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41772308What 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.