Cited by 4,889Reading and Literacy DevelopmentVisual perception and processing mechanismsNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 45 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: I. An account of basic findings.

McClelland, James L., Rumelhart, David E.·1981·Psychological Review

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0033-295x.88.5.375

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 45 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
McClelland, J. L., & Rumelhart, D. E.
Affiliations
University of California San Diego (US)
Venue
Psychological Review
Published
1981-09
Volume
88
Issue
5
Pages
375-407
ISSN
  • 0033-295X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1471
OpenAlex
W2073257493
Cited by
4,889
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 82 · 2025: 109 · 2024: 94 · 2023: 94 · 2022: 137 · 2021: 94 · 2020: 85 · 2019: 178 · 2018: 110 · 2017: 114 · 2016: 111 · 2015: 107 · 2014: 107 · 2013: 126 · 2012: 178
FWCI
52.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Psychological Review (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
Keywords
interactive activation model, context effects, letter perception, visual word recognition, letter recognition

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