ArticleReading and writing2026
Text difficulty modulates the surprisal effect in self-paced reading.
Article in Reading and writing, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Surprisal, the statistical likelihood of a word or syntactic structure given its preceding context, is an important metric for understanding the predictive/integrative process in reading. Although individual words and syntactic structures vary in surprisal within any text, regardless of its overall difficulty, it remains unclear whether text difficulty modulates how surprisal influences reading. We hypothesized that higher text difficulty increases readers' reliance on contextual information during reading, leading to stronger surprisal effects. To test this hypothesis, we examined how text difficulty modulates the strength of word and syntactic surprisal effects and whether this modulation generalizes across computational language models with different architectures. We compared reading times for two sets of texts that differed in difficulty but were matched on average surprisal. Results showed larger word and syntactic surprisal effects in more difficult texts, consistently across models. These results suggest that the predictive/integrative processes are shaped by global text properties.
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.