ArticleCognitive processing2026
I'm trying to read here! How does irrelevant speech affect how you read?
Article in Cognitive processing, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Reading involves a remarkable coordination of perceptual and linguistic processes. This coordination is reflected by a close coupling between reading eye movements and lexical properties of words, such as word frequency and predictability, as well as morpho-syntactic and semantic regularities. Yet, reading is also subject to interference, and a common source of interference is when others are speaking nearby. Then, how does irrelevant speech affect reading as reflected in eye movements? Fifty-nine participants (mean age: 19, SD age: 1.22, 25 females, 34 males, primary language: English) read passages from the PROVO corpus Luke and Christianson (Behav Res Methods 50(2):826-833. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0908-4 , 2018) under intelligible irrelevant speech or the silence condition, with eye movements recorded. We investigated how irrelevant speech influences the coupling between eye movements and several indicators of lexical difficulty, including word frequency, cloze probability (exact-word predictability), large language model-generated surprisal, morpho-syntactic predictability (part-of-speech and inflection), and semantic similarity (general meaning). Associations between lexical variables and word looking times remained robust during first-pass reading and were unaffected by irrelevant speech, suggesting intact lexical processing during early stages of reading. However, disruption emerged in later eye-movement measures (i.e., total viewing time), where low-frequency and semantically unpredictable words prompted increased re-reading under irrelevant speech. These results indicate that intelligible irrelevant speech selectively interferes with post-lexical, higher-order processing. The increased re-reading of rare and semantically unpredictable words suggests that readers compensate for speech interference by revisiting these words to better integrate their meanings into a coherent understanding of the text.
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.