Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42380726›Full record

ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2026

Lexical word processing is unaffected by rapid invisible frequency tagging in reading: Evidence from eye movements.

Veronika Prigorkina, Heather Sheridan, Steven Frisson, Yali Pan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Veronika PrigorkinaDepartment of Experimental and Applied Psychology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-6145-645X
Heather SheridanDepartment of Psychology, University at Albany, Albany, NY, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8486-644X
Steven FrissonCentre for Human Brain Health, School of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6414-5538
Yali PanCentre for Human Brain Health, School of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. Y.Pan.1@bham.ac.uk.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0062-4326

Funding

Leverhulme Trust ECF-2023-626
6 · The paper itself

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

AttentionEye MovementsPattern Recognition, VisualPsycholinguisticsReadingAdultEye Movement MeasurementsFemaleFixation, OcularHumansMaleSaccadesYoung AdultEye-trackingParafoveal processingRapid invisible frequency tagging (RIFT)ReadingSurvival analysisWord frequency effectWord processing

Identifiers

PMID42380726
PMCPMC13325337

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.