ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
Cross-linguistic effects of pre-reading prediction, cue encoding, and retrieval interval on metacomprehension monitoring accuracy.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent studies show self-explanation and predictive inference strategies can improve metacomprehension monitoring, but the roles of pre-reading prediction and cross-linguistic transfer remain under-examined. This study used a 2 (language type: Chinese vs. English) × 2 (predictive condition: predictive vs. non-predictive) × 2 (interval type: interval vs. no-interval) × 2 (language proficiency: Chinese vs. English scores) mixed design, with immediate judgments and segmented delayed measures, to test effects of pre-reading prediction and encoding-retrieval interval and their transfer across languages. Key findings of the current research include (1) no-interval conditions yielded higher monitoring accuracy than interval conditions; (2) the pre-reading prediction condition yielded lower monitoring accuracy for expository texts, likely due to limited prior knowledge and the specific demands of the pre-reading task; (3) L1 (Chinese) metacomprehension was transferred to L2 (English) contexts, while foreign-language proficiency did not mediate transfer. These results clarify how encoding-retrieval intervals affect metacomprehension accuracy in reading in Chinese, delimit the conditions under which pre-reading prediction may be counterproductive, and provide empirical evidence for cross-linguistic transfer of metacomprehension processes in bilingual settings. Empirically, the findings suggest that pre-reading prediction training should be tailored to text genre and readers' background knowledge, and that strengthening L1 metacognitive skills can facilitate L2 reading.
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.