ArticleJournal of psycholinguistic research2026
Illusions of Plausibility: The Case of Semantic Attraction.
Article in Journal of psycholinguistic 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Semantic attraction is an illusion of plausibility that occurs when a noun with verb-matching semantic cues intervenes in the subject-verb agreement relation. Thus, a sentence like “The drawer with the knife cuts” tends to be perceived as more acceptable than “The drawer with the handle cuts” because cut and knife (the attractor) often co-occur. We report results from a self-paced reading experiment followed by two offline tasks (acceptability judgments and comprehension questions) that sought to examine the underlying factors in stronger or weaker semantic attraction effects. That was done by manipulating the frequency with which nouns co-occur with the verb and the cognitive load on working memory. The converging evidence reveals that online processing is rarely disturbed by implausible sentences, but their interpretation is directly linked to lexical co-occurrence and general contextual plausibility. Therefore, not only does acceptability in implausible sentences increase with the presence of an attractor but the degree to which the attractor shares features with the local noun can be a predictor of the likelihood of attraction, showing speakers’ sensitivity to plausible reading. That, in turn, suggests that in addition to a cue-based parsing mechanism, speakers' expectations, based on their world knowledge, seem to contribute to sentence interpretation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42223566What 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.