Individual differences in visual comprehension of morphological complexity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores variability in individual strategies of processing morphologically complex words.We examined the eye-movement record that 71 readers showed during reading of suffixed words (truck+er): the readers also took part in a battery of 17 skill tests, which allowed for a fine-grained characterization of their verbal abilities.Statistical analyses revealed that an individual's ability to segment words as well as his or her level of reading comprehension shifted the balance between recognition of a complex word as a whole and its recognition via decomposed morphemes.Effects of whole-word frequency and base morpheme frequency were observed in both good and poor readers, yet their qualitative nature varied by skill.Good readers suffered from lexical competition between whole words (trucker) and base morphemes (truck), while poor readers received a recognition boost from base words.We discuss these interactive patterns in the context of computational models of morphological processing and argue that readers strategically adjust weights of different sources of morphological information, depending on the quality of the lexical representation for both the complex words and their morphemes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".