Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42778831›Full record

ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2026

Probing the use of visual search as a tool to enhance reading speed.

Francesco Carabba, Chiara Borsati, Giulia Fontana, Eric Altieri, Michele Vicovaro, Luca Battaglini

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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

6 authors.

Francesco Carabba *Cognitive and Educational Sciences Lab (CESLab), Faculty of Education, Free University of Bolzano-Bozen, 39042, Bressanone-Brixen, BZ, Italy.
Chiara Borsati *Department of General Psychology, University of Padova, Via Venezia, 8, 35131, Padova, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-9588-4416
Giulia FontanaDepartment of General Psychology, University of Padova, Via Venezia, 8, 35131, Padova, Italy.
Eric AltieriCentro di Ateneo dei Servizi Clinici Universitari Psicologici (SCUP), University of Padova, Via Tommaseo, 47/A, 35131, Padova, Italy.
Michele VicovaroDepartment of General Psychology, University of Padova, Via Venezia, 8, 35131, Padova, Italy.
Luca BattagliniDepartment of General Psychology, University of Padova, Via Venezia, 8, 35131, Padova, Italy. luca.battaglini@unipd.it.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AttentionPattern Recognition, VisualReadingAdultFemaleHumansMaleProcessing SpeedReaction TimeYoung AdultMagnocellular-Dorsal systemPerceptual learningReadingTrainingVisual search

Identifiers

PMID42778831
PMCPMC13601095

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.