Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41912971›Full record

ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2026

Early planning of response content and form when answering questions.

Catherine M Brousse, Michael P Kaschak

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2026. 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

2 authors.

Catherine M BrousseDepartment of Psychology, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, 32306, USA.
Michael P KaschakDepartment of Psychology, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, 32306, USA. michael.p.kaschak@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Early form approaches to language production suggest that interlocutors plan both the content and form of their utterances as early as possible while their partner is speaking. Late form approaches suggest that the content of an interlocutor's response is planned early, but the form of the response is planned closer to the time when the interlocutor will begin speaking. We tested these accounts in a question-answering paradigm modeled after Corps and Pickering (2024). Participants answered trivia questions. The information required to answer each question was either presented early (Which animal barks and is also a common household pet?) or late (Which animal is a common household pet and also barks?) in the question. The target answer was either short (typically, one word) or long (more than one word). Participants responded more quickly when the critical information appeared early in the question and when the answer was short. There was also an interaction, where the effect of answer length was more pronounced when the critical information appeared late in the question. The results are consistent with the early form account.

Indexed as

ComprehensionSpeechHumansLanguage productionPlanningQuestion answering

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.