ArticleQuarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006)2026
What Phonological Overlap Effects Reveal About the Role of Working Memory in Native and Nonnative Language Processing.
Article in Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006), 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
The present study sheds light on effects of similarity-based interference due to phonological overlap (PO), as well as working memory (WM), during silent reading in native speakers (NS) and nonnative speakers (NNS). While prior research has mainly focused on syntactic complexity or ambiguity to gain insight into nonnative language processing and the role of WM, the effects of PO have remained poorly understood. Using multiline texts with varying degrees of PO, we examined whether increased amounts of overlap disrupt online reading and offline recall, and whether effects differ across native and nonnative groups or vary as a function of WM capacity. Results revealed that greater PO caused delays during online processing, but without impacting offline recall. Crucially, NS and NNS experienced online interference similarly, and WM modulated these effects in comparable ways across both groups. These results suggest convergence both in overt behaviour and in how underlying cognitive resources are used. Findings are discussed with respect to their implications for theories of native-nonnative language processing differences and possible directions for further research.
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.