ArticleCognitive processing2026
Emojis vs. black-and-white and colored drawings: comparing living and non-living things in oral naming.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Language assessment tools have traditionally used black-and-white line drawings. However, recent research highlights color as a key feature to distinguish visually similar concepts. Emojis are simplified and conventionalized visual representations that integrate salient visual-perceptual attributes, such as shape and color, into the representation of concepts. This study aimed to compare semantic and lexical access to living (LTs) and non-living things (NLTs) across black-and-white drawings, colored drawings, and emojis. Ninety healthy adults completed a computerized oral-naming task including 64 stimuli (32 living and 32 non-living items) presented in one of the three visual formats. Accuracy was analyzed using a generalized linear mixed-effects model (GLMM), and reaction times were analyzed using a linear mixed-effects model (LMM). Accuracy analyses revealed a main effect of semantic domain, with higher accuracy for the NLTs domain, and a significant format and domain interaction, but no main effect of format was identified. The disadvantage in naming LTs was most evident for black-and-white drawings and was reduced for colored drawings and emojis. Reaction time analyses showed main effects of domain and format as well as a significant interaction, with slower naming of LTs in black-and-white format. Overall, the results suggest that performance across visual formats was broadly similar when considered globally, but that differences emerged when semantic domain was taken into account. LTs were particularly affected by the absence of color. This study highlights the potential of emojis as an experimental visual format and suggests that their role in oral naming and language assessment should be further examined.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42377670What 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.