MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407505400 · doi:10.1037/xlm0001438

Tracking the dynamic word-by-word incremental reading through multimeasures.

2025· article· en· W4407505400 on OpenAlex
Lin Chen, Gaisha Oralova, Shannon Clark, Daniela Teodorescu, Alona Fyshe, Carrie Demmans Epp, Maxwell R. Helfrich, Charles A. Perfetti

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Text Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWord (group theory)PsychologyReading (process)Word recognitionLinguisticsWord lengthCognitive psychologyWord lists by frequencyNatural language processingComputer scienceSentence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reading relies on the incremental processes that occur across all words in a passage to build a global comprehension of the text. Factorial experimental designs are not well-suited to examine these incremental processes, which are influenced by multilevel factors in an overlapping manner. Exemplifying an alternative approach, we combined event-related potentials, probabilistic language models, authentic texts, and statistical methods to examine the time course of multilevel linguistic influences on the incremental processes which occur during reading each word. We found that indicators of the initial stages of word identification (N170 and P200) are sensitive to context-independent statistical information of a word, for example, word frequency. The later stages of word processing, involving processes related to meaning retrieval and integration (N400), heavily rely on the word's context-dependent information measured by word surprisal. Syntactic processing, reflected by a word's syntactic surprisal and the number of phrase structures it closes, was presented across multiple phases (an early negativity, N400, and a late positivity). Additionally, the effects of position factors at both the word and sentence levels emerged across multiple time windows (including N170, P200, and N400), suggesting their distinct influence beyond linguistic factors. These findings provide a theoretically coherent picture of incremental reading, partly convergent with conclusions from factorial studies but with novel results concerning the time courses and interactions of processing components. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.544
Threshold uncertainty score0.486

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.340 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it