ArticleBehavior research methods2026
Reassessing cumulative self-paced reading (SPR): Testing three variants shows cumulative SPR can be more useful than standard non-cumulative SPR for sentence-processing research, depending on presentation format.
Article in Behavior research methods, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Competing Biases in Real-Time Sentence Processing.Journal of cognition · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Self-paced reading (SPR) is widely used to investigate real-time sentence processing. In SPR, sentences can be presented either cumulatively, with previously presented words remaining visible, or non-cumulatively, with previous words disappearing. However, most prior research has avoided cumulative presentation, largely due to concerns that it allows readers to reveal multiple words through rapid key presses and then read them, thereby undermining the interpretability of reading times. As a result, cumulative SPR is widely assumed to be unsuitable for research on real-time sentence processing. The present study examines this assumption by comparing three cumulative SPR variants-ahead-visible cumulative SPR (AVC-SPR), non-ahead-visible cumulative SPR (NAVC-SPR), and partially cumulative SPR (PC-SPR)-with standard non-cumulative SPR (NC-SPR). In AVC-SPR, the positions of upcoming words are visually indicated; in NAVC-SPR, upcoming positions are not indicated; and in PC-SPR, upcoming positions are likewise not indicated, and accumulation is capped so that only a limited number of words remain visible. The four tasks were compared in terms of their sensitivity to detecting garden-path and number-mismatch effects. Clear effects were observed in all four tasks, with NAVC-SPR yielding the largest effect sizes. Power analyses further indicated that NAVC-SPR generally offers the highest prospective power to detect these effects. PC-SPR showed effect sizes similar to or larger than those in NC-SPR, and AVC-SPR was the least reliable task. Together, these findings challenge the assumption that cumulative presentation is unsuitable for studying real-time sentence processing and suggest that NAVC-SPR and PC-SPR are viable alternatives to NC-SPR. All cumulative SPR tasks, together with an R script for automated stimulus formatting, are openly available to facilitate their adoption.
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.