ArticlePsychological research2026
Attentional dynamics in lexical and language identification: evidence from eye-tracking.
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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Language identification has become increasingly critical in real-world applications, particularly in forensic linguistics and natural language processing. This study employed an eye-tracking visual world paradigm to investigate the dynamic modulation of attention during lexical and language identification. Analyses of key-pressing and eye-tracking data across six conditions - speaker-dependent (1), object-dependent (2), speaker- or object-dependent (3), mismatch speaker-object (4), speaker-only (5), and object-only (6) - revealed that lexical identification takes priority over language-speaker identification in auditory speech processing. Nevertheless, a mismatch between the lexical referent and the speaker's language triggered an early (about 600 ms in English and 320 ms in Dutch after word onset) increase in pupil size and early peaking and dropping of inspections to speakers, revealing early attentional integration of the two processes. The results also indicate that language identification is achievable even given very limited prior exposure to an unfamiliar language (when speaker-language association is useful, M = 0.67, SD = 0.38). Specifically, this is achieved through cross-linguistic mutual exclusivity and non-lexical phonetic cues, with individual variability in the use of these strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42089897What 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.