ArticlePsychological research2026
Context and working memory capacity affect the processing of written irony in chinese: an eye-tracking study.
Article in Psychological research, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Written irony is defined as the use of words to express the opposite to the literal meaning. Comprehending ironic praise is more difficult than that of ironic criticism. However, whether and how language context and individuals' working memory capacity (WMC) affect irony comprehension in Chinese whose script is distinct from alphabetic languages are currently unclear and warrant further research. In this study, participants read ironic criticism and ironic praise sentences while their eye movements were recorded. The results showed that the processing of ironic praise needed longer first reading time, regression path time, and total reading time as compared to the ironic criticism. However, no significant difference was found between literal criticism and literal praise. In addition, when the inconsistency between context and the ironic utterance was weak, first-pass and rereading time for ironic praise were significantly longer than those for ironic criticism. However, there was no difference between ironic praise and criticism in the strong context inconsistency condition. Furthermore, participants with low WMC showed significantly longer total reading time for ironic praise than participants with high WMC. Moreover, they read the prior context of ironic praise with longer regression path reading time and rereading time than that of ironic criticism. Taken together, these results suggest that ironic praise is more difficult to read and require more cognitive resources relative to ironic criticism in Chinese, which was similar with findings in Western cultures and scripts. More importantly, prior context and WMC modulated differently the influence on irony comprehension. Specifically, the weak context inconsistency made it harder to understand the ironic praise than ironic criticism, lasting from the early to the late processing stages. However, the influence of WMC mainly occurred in the late integration stage of irony comprehension. This study makes two major theoretical contributions. First, it extends key findings on irony processing-the greater difficulty of understanding ironic praise and the role of context and working memory-to Chinese, a distinct language and cultural system, by confirming that these cognitive mechanisms are universal. Second, it clarifies how these factors operate at different stages of processing and suggests that features of a writing system (such as logographic script) can influence the timing of high-level language comprehension.
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.