The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Less Skilled Readers Have Less Efficient Suppression Mechanisms
Open accessAbstract
One approach to understanding the component processes and mechanisms underlying adult reading skill is to compare the performance of more skilled and less skilled readers on laboratory experiments. The results of some recent experiments employing this approach demonstrate that less skilled adult readers suppress less efficiently the inappropriate meanings of ambiguous words (e.g., the playing card vs. garden tool meanings of spaded, the incorrect forms of homophones (e.g., patients vs. patience), the typical-but-absent members of scenes (e.g., a tractor in a farm scene), and words superimposed on pictures. Less skilled readers are not less efficient in activating contextually appropriate information; in fact, they activate contextually appropriate information more strongly than more skilled readers do. Therefore, one conclusion that can be drawn from these experiments is that less skilled adult readers suffer from less efficient suppression mechanisms.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A ROWS is a ROSE: Spelling, sound, and reading
van Orden, G. C. (1987) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/bf03197716 · Cited by 867
Cited by
The relations among inhibition and interference control functions: A latent-variable analysis.
Friedman, N. P., & Miyake, A. (2004) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.133.1.101 · Cited by 2,309
Bull, R., & Scerif, G. (2001) · Developmental Neuropsychology · doi:10.1207/s15326942dn1903_3 · Cited by 1,501
Executive functions and achievements in school: Shifting, updating, inhibition, and working memory
St Clair-Thompson, H. L., & Gathercole, S. E. (2006) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1080/17470210500162854 · Cited by 1,278
The cocktail party phenomenon revisited: The importance of working memory capacity
Conway, A. R. A., Cowan, N., & Bunting, M. F. (2001) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/bf03196169 · Cited by 875
Cognitive control and parsing: Reexamining the role of Broca’s area in sentence comprehension
Novick, J. M., Trueswell, J. C., & Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2005) · Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.3758/cabn.5.3.263 · Cited by 682
Metadata
- Authors
- Gernsbacher, M. A.
- Venue
- Psychological Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1993-09
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 294-298
- ISSN
- 0956-7976 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-9280
- OpenAlex
- W2129587501
- Cited by
- 226
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 7.02
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Less Skilled Readers Have Less Efficient Suppression Mechanisms. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1993.tb00567.x
- The paper
- Gernsbacher, M. A. (1993). Less Skilled Readers Have Less Efficient Suppression Mechanisms. Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1993.tb00567.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.