Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42920031›Full record

ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2026

Morphological analysis when morphemes are hard to detect: Evidence from infixation and reduplication.

Dave Kenneth Tayao Cayado, Kathleen Rastle

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
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

2 authors.

Dave Kenneth Tayao CayadoDepartment of Psychology, Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham, UK. Dave.Cayado@rhul.ac.uk.
Kathleen RastleDepartment of Psychology, Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham, UK.

Funding

British Academy PFSS24\240027
6 · The paper itself

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

Pattern Recognition, VisualPsycholinguisticsReadingHumansMorphological processingMorphologyReadingTagalogVisual word recognition

Identifiers

PMID42920031

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.