ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2026
Lexical word processing is unaffected by rapid invisible frequency tagging in reading: Evidence from eye movements.
Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 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
Abstract
The aim of this study was to test whether rapid invisible frequency tagging (RIFT)-a promising tool to directly measure covert attention allocated to parafoveal words-affects lexical processing during natural reading. RIFT involves flickering the background of the target word(s) at an imperceptible frequency (≥60 Hz), but imperceptibility does not necessarily equate to the absence of a cognitive effect. The current study examined the potential impact of the RIFT paradigm on eye movements. Forty-eight participants read 474 high-frequency and low-frequency target words that were embedded in one-line sentences and displayed randomly in three condition blocks: no tagging, invisible tagging at 60 Hz (i.e., the RIFT) and visible tagging at 30 Hz. Linear mixed-effect modelling and divergence point analysis revealed a robust frequency effect, with high-frequency words processed faster than low-frequency words, but, crucially, no significant differences across the three conditions in terms of its magnitude or onset latency, except for a miniscule effect on saccade amplitude (0.06˚). Overall fixation durations (irrespective of lexical frequency) did not differ between the no-tagging and RIFT conditions, but were significantly longer in the visible tagging condition, suggesting that deliberately drawing attention to the tagging area actually slowed down reading. Furthermore, a postexperiment questionnaire indicated relatively low RIFT awareness. Altogether, preserved lexical frequency effects of comparable magnitude, similar divergence points and overall fixation and saccade patterns, suggest that RIFT is a valid tool for measuring attention during reading that is unlikely to interfere with word processing and highlight its potential for application in ecologically valid settings involving eye movements.
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.