ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2026
Morphological analysis when morphemes are hard to detect: Evidence from infixation and reduplication.
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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
There is substantial psycholinguistic evidence that skilled reading involves morphological analysis, whereby morphologically complex words like teacher are recognised via constituent morphemes {teach}+{-er}. The ability to recognise morphemes is vital as it allows readers to interpret both familiar and unfamiliar words. However, over 50% of the evidence for this claim comes from studies of suffixation in English, where morphemes typically have a relatively consistent surface form across exemplars (clean in cleaner, cleanliness; -ed in walked, jumped). It remains unclear whether morphological analysis is also robust when morphemes lack a consistent surface form. Using the morpheme interference paradigm in Tagalog, we test whether infixes and reduplicants are detected during prelexical processing. Infixes are inserted within a stem and therefore reduce the consistency of its surface realisation (e.g., tawag → t-in-awag 'called'), while reduplicants involve partial or full copying of a stem and therefore lack a consistent surface realisation (e.g., tawag and lundag become tatawag 'will call' and lulundag 'will jump', where ta- and lu- are instances of the same reduplicant morpheme). We found robust morpheme interference effects in both accuracy and RTs. Specifically, nonwords with morphological structure induced significantly lower accuracy and longer RTs than nonwords without. Our findings show skilled readers' acquired sensitivity to these sophisticated morphological structures and motivate refinements to theories of morpheme learning.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42920031What 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.