Cited by 202Neurobiology of Language and BilingualismReading and Literacy DevelopmentLanguage Development and Disorders

Lexical decision for open-and closed-class words: Failure to replicate differential frequency sensitivity

Gordon, Barry, Caramazza, Alfonso·1982·Brain and Language

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/0093-934x(82)90053-0

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gordon, B., & Caramazza, A.
Affiliations
Johns Hopkins University (US)
Corresponding author
Gordon, Barry
Venue
Brain and Language
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1982-01
Volume
15
Issue
1
Pages
143-160
ISSN
0093-934X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2150357445
Cited by
202
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
13.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Brain and Language (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
Keywords
lexical decision, content words, closed-class words, reaction time, syntactic processing, replication failure, word frequency distribution, inflection point
MeSH terms
Adult, Aphasia, Aphasia, Broca, Humans, Male, Reaction Time, Semantics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review