“Are More Cues Always Better?” Effects of Cue-Based Instructional Support on Chinese L2 Vocabulary Processing and Immediate Learning Outcomes: Eye-Tracking Evidence

Behav Sci (Basel) · 2026 · PMC13295581

Europe PMC

hedged sentences

0.0510

closest p · 1.0× alpha

0.0680

boldest claim

The sentences

approached significancep = 0.051so close (0.05 < p ≤ 0.1)

Several comparisons approached significance, including verbal cueing versus physical cueing ( p = 0.051), physical cueing versus full cueing ( p = 0.063), and no cueing versus verbal cueing ( p = 0.069). 3.3.4.

also in 5,298 other papers

marginal significancep = 0.061so close (0.05 < p ≤ 0.1)

Furthermore, dwell times in both the no cueing and physical cueing conditions were significantly longer than that in the verbal cueing condition ( ps < 0.001), whereas the difference between the no cueing and physical cueing conditions did not reach significance, though it approached marginal significance ( p = 0.061).

also in 3,113 other papers

marginally significantp = 0.068so close (0.05 < p ≤ 0.1)

Post hoc comparisons revealed that first-fixation duration in the physical cueing condition was significantly shorter than that in the verbal cueing condition ( p = 0.031); the difference between the physical cueing and no cueing conditions was marginally significant ( p = 0.068), with the first-fixation duration in the no cueing condition potentially being longer than that in the physical cueing condition.

also in 15,096 other papers

Quoted from the open-access full text in Europe PMC under the licence the publisher applied. The sentence is reproduced exactly as published; the emphasis is ours.