ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2026
Probing the use of visual search as a tool to enhance reading speed.
Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 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
The reading mechanism is associated with perceptual, attentional, and oculomotor processes that partly overlap with functions attributed to the magnocellular-dorsal system. On this basis, we examined whether a home-based visual-search training program, without phonological, orthographic, or reading components, could influence reading-related performance in adult typical readers. Participants were assigned to one of three training versions that differed in the visual features of Gabor patterns to be detected (orientation, phase, or configuration), or to a no-training control group. Training performance indicated that the three visual-search versions differed in difficulty: The orientation task was relatively easy, the phase task was the most perceptually demanding, and the configuration task was intermediate. Regression analyses controlling for pretest performance showed lower adjusted posttest reading times, relative to the no-training group, for the phase group in word reading and lexical decision, and for the configuration group in nonword reading. No consistent training-related advantage was observed for accuracy. These results suggest that demanding visual-search training may be associated with changes in some timed reading-related outcomes, but the effects were outcome-specific and should be interpreted as preliminary. Further work is needed to disentangle task difficulty, search mode, and training dose, and to determine whether similar effects generalize to children or to readers with dyslexia. OPEN PRACTICES STATEMENT: The raw trial-level data for all experimental conditions are publicly available in the OSF repository ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/XTY4S ). The repository also contains the code for the analyses described in the Sensitivity Analysis and Type I Error Rate section. The experiment and analyses were not preregistered.
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.