Marc Brysbaert

1. to what extent does visual word recognition depend on phonological coding?
2. if a person is bilingual, what are the similarities and the differences between word recognition in the first and the second language?
3. given that the left part of the fovea projects to the right brain half and the right part to the left brain half, how does our brain integrate the information of a centrally presented word?
4. how can we explain that word processing times are a function of the age at which the words were acquired in addition to the frequency with which we encounter them?
5. which words are looked at during text reading and which are skipped?

As for number recognition, I am particularly interested in the differences between the processing of Arabic numbers and verbal numbers.

For the rest, I keep having an active interest in the following topics that I addressed at some stage of my career:

1. Sentence parsing (in particular relative clause attachment)
2. Processing morphologically complex words (in particular noun plurals)
3. How people of Continental Europe cope with the introduction of the Euro
4. Various aspects of statistics and research methods

General Description of Research

It is well-known in psycholinguistics that we do not read texts on the basis of the visual code alone. When we read a text, many of us have the impression that we are using some kind of inner voice (especially when the text is difficult). In addition, historical documents suggest that silent reading is a recent phenomenon. Up to 100 years ago, reading aloud was the default option, just like children who begin to read need to say the words out loud. One reason why this might be so, is that text understanding heavily relies on auditory codes for the maintenance of information in working memory. Our verbal short-term memory relies more on phonological information than on orthographic information (e.g., most people rehearse telephone numbers silently when they have to keep them in mind for a few seconds), and it has been claimed that individuals who cannot keep more than three spoken words in short-term memory have difficulties comprehending written text, especially when the sentences are long. Much debate exists, however, about the stage of processing at which the recoding from orthography to phonology takes place. For a long time, it was thought that this happened after the orthographic word was recognised by the brain (so called "addressed phonology"). Research in the last decade, however, has shown that there is a strong case to believe that the recoding takes place before the word is recognised (i.e., "assembled phonology"). Most of the evidence is based on the masked phonological priming technique: A target word like BRAIN is recognised faster if immediately before the non-word "brane" is shown for a very brief period of time than when the non-word "branf" is shown. My main contributions to this topic have been to show (1) that people cannot suppress the prelexical recoding from orthography to phonology, even when it hurts their performance (Brysbaert, 2001; Drieghe & Brysbaert, 2002), (2) that the recoding is equally important in second language word recognition as in first language word recognition (Brysbaert, Van Dyck, & Van de Poel, 1999; Van Wijnendaele & Brysbaert, 2002), and (3) that the automatic phonological coding does not necessarily imply the absence of an orthographic route in visual word recognition (Rastle & Brysbaert, 2006).

Being a quadrilingual myself (using the lenient criteria commonly found among native English speakers), my research on visual word recognition quite naturally ran into the questions to what extent second language word recognition differs from first language recognition, and how multilinguals avoid interference from the non-target language when they are having a conversation or reading a text in one of their languages. For a long time, it was assumed that bilinguals had two mental dictionaries (lexicons), one for each language, and that they could selectively switch on and off one of these dictionaries (i.e., they had selective access). Recent years, however, have witnessed a surge of research showing that this assumption is likely to be wrong. There is quite some evidence now that bilinguals cannot inhibit or activate upon command one of their languages. As a matter of fact, there is even a lot of evidence suggesting that the words of the different languages are not stored in separate lexicons, but all form part of one unitary lexicon. Needless to say, these are exciting opportunities for a multilingual psycholinguist. An easy introduction to this topic can be found in a chapter I recently wrote for a book (Brysbaert & Dijkstra, 2006).

One of the most conspicuous aspects of the human brain is that it consists of two big halves: There is a left and a right cerebral hemisphere, split by a deep cleft. In addition, there is ample evidence that in 95% of the humans, language is predominantly processed in the left brain half. This raises the question how a visually presented word reaches this hemisphere, the more because it is known that information presented in the left half of the visual field is initially projected to the right cerebral hemisphere and information presented in the right half of the visual field is initially projected to the left hemisphere. When I was a beginning student (now some 20 years ago), this made me wonder whether the organisation of the visual system implied that the first half of a centrally presented word was initially sent to the right cerebral hemisphere and the last half to the left cerebral hemisphere? When I asked my lecturers, they did not know the answer. When I subsequently looked into the literature, there was no answer to be found either. It was generally assumed - without much evidence - that the central part of the visual field (the fovea) sent information in parallel to both cerebral hemispheres. So, the idea was that a word on which they eyes landed in text reading, was simultaneously projected to both brain halves, and that the left brain half subsequently dealt with the further processing. For my master's thesis and my PhD thesis, I spent a total of 9 years to show that this assumption was wrong: The fovea is effectively split, meaning that when we look at the centre of a word, the two halves of the word are sent to opposite brain hemispheres, and interhemispheric integration is needed before the word can be recognised. Interhemispheric transfer is fast (a few thousands of a second), but can be shown by appropriate testing. This means that a comprehensive theory of visual word recognition will have to take this factor into account (in addition to all the other variables mentioned on this site!). Although I published two articles on the issue in well-known journals (Brysbaert, 1994; Brysbaert, Vitu, & Schroyens, 1996), for a long time this research seemed to be ignored, until suddenly three groups of researchers discovered it at around the same: Michal Lavidor, Andy Ellis, and Vince Walsh (now at the Universities of Hull, York, and UCL), Richard Shillcock (University of Edinburgh), and Carol Whitney (University of Maryland). Their combined efforts have resulted in a stream of high-profile articles in the last few years, a number of joint seminars, and very recently a European training network (http://www.hull.ac.uk/RTN-LAB/). In particular the latter has been extremely fruitful, because it has allowed me to collaborate with Zoë Hunter on what is likely to become a very impressive series of papers, combining behavioural studies with fMRI evidence. An easy introduction to this topic can be found in a review paper I wrote for a special journal issue dedicated to the topic (Brysbaert, 2004).

People are best at the things they do a lot ("practice makes perfect"). Word recognition is no exception to this rule: Words that are often encountered are recognised faster and more easily than words we only see or hear once in a while. This is the so-called word frequency effect: High-frequency words are processed faster than low-frequency words. The effect is so pervasive that no theory of word recognition will be considered if it is not able to explain the effect. Word frequency is measured by counting the number of times a word appears in texts or conversations. Research in the last decade has shown, however, that the frequency effect does not tell the whole story of the impact of practice on the word recognition system. It has been demonstrated that when the frequency of a word is controlled, early-acquired words are recognised faster than late-acquired words. So, although "penguin" and "peacock" have about the same frequency (some 5 per million, meaning that these words are read on average every 200,000 words), the word "penguin" is recognised faster than the word "peacock" because the former is known to two-year old children, whereas the latter is not. The effect is even stronger when pictures of a penguin and a peacock are shown and participants are asked to say the name of the animal as fast as possible. To some extent, the effect of age-of-acquisition is related to the frequency effect, because a word that is known for a long time has been encountered more often than a word that was acquired recently. However, more detailed research has shown that this "cumulative frequency hypothesis" does not explain everything, because (1) the effect of age-of-acquisition is stronger than would be predicted on the basis of the cumulative frequency hypothesis (e.g., Ghyselinck, Lewis, & Brysbaert, 2004), and (2) the effect of age-of-acquisition relative to that of the frequency effect varies across tasks (e.g., it is much stronger in picture naming than in lexical decision). A nice introduction to this topic can be found in a review paper I recently co-authored for a special journal issue on the topic (Brysbaert & Ghyselinck, 2006).

When we read a text, our eyes make a series of small jumps on each line of text. In English, we start to read at the left side of a line of text, fixate the first (or the second) word for some 250 ms, then quickly jump with our eyes a few characters to the right and pause there again for some 250 ms, followed by another eye jerk and a pause, …, and so on until we reach the end of the line, at which point we make a return sweep to the beginning of the next line. Roughly, the eyes pause on two thirds of the words. That is, about one third of the words in a text are not looked at (i.e. are skipped). The words that are skipped are usually short, easy words. In all alphabetical languages, most high-frequency (i.e., easy) words are short words, because this helps us to communicate faster. Suppose the English words "a" and "the" had been "aworda" and "theworthe". Then saying a sentence like "the man gave the dog a bone" would become much more cumbersome because of the long articles (i.e., "theworthe man gave theworthe dog aworda bone"). Now, within the literature of eye movement control in reading, there is a big discussion about whether a word is skipped because it is easy or because it is short. In the former case, it is argued that a word is skipped because two words were identified in the fixation prior to the eye movement (i.e., the word the eyes were looking at and the next word that subsequently was skipped). In the latter case, the authors argue that word information from the non-fixated word does not arrive in time to influence the upcoming eye movement (it takes some 100 ms to plan such a movement), and that the brain makes an educated guess on the basis of the length of the word blob. In a meta-analysis of the literature, Francoise Vitu and I (Brysbaert & Vitu, 1998) showed that both the ease and the length of the word matter, but that the impact of the length is about 10 times that of the easiness. So, a word is predominantly skipped because it is short and not because it is easy, meaning that a difficult 2-letter word has more chances of being skipped than an easy 4-letter word (Drieghe et al., 2004). When a difficult short word is skipped, very often immediately after the skip the eyes return to the word as if the brain by this time realises it has made a mistake by programming an eye movement beyond the word. A good, recent introduction to this topic is given in Brysbaert, Drieghe, & Vitu, 2005).

While doing research on word recognition, it suddenly occurred to me that numbers could be interesting stimulus materials, because they can be represented as words and Arabic digits. So, I embarked on the question how Arabic digits are processed (like words or like pictures?). To cut a very long story short (because all this started in 1989!), numbers seem to have a status somewhere between words and pictures. In many respects, they are recognised like pictures (Brysbaert, 1995; Fias, Brysbaert, & Reynvoet, 2001), but (unlike pictures?) they can be named directly without semantic mediation (Ratinckx et al., 2005). As part of this research line, we also discovered that the numbers from 1 to 99 have a distinct meaning (semantic) representation, which is best captured by the metaphor of a compressed number line on which the numbers are located from left (small) to right (large) and more space is dedicated to the small numbers (1, 2, 3) than to the large number (98, 99). In mathematical terms, the scale is logarithmic. I have written an introductory book chapter on this topic (Brysbaert, 2005) for the Handbook of Mathematical Cognition, which you may find helpful if you want to know more about this topic. Numbers are also great stimuli to do research on laterality and interhemispheric transfer (e.g., Ratinckx & Brysbaert, 2002).

On my journey of trying to understand how words are recognised and how the eyes plod their way through lines of text, I became interested in the question of how sentences are parsed. It is not enough for readers to understand the individual words of a sentence, they must also establish the relationships between the words. That is, they must understand "who did what to whom" (or "with whom" in certain circles). As Frazier and Clifton claimed, there is big difference between the sentences "he showed her the baby pictures" and "he showed her baby the pictures", even though the order of the content words is the same. For this research, I leaned heavily on Don Mitchell from the University of Exeter (and in recent years on Timothy Desmet, who became much more knowledgeable about the topic than I can ever dream of). At the moment, it is fair to say that my involvement in this topic is becoming more that of an interested observer rather than a player (although I do a lot of reviewing in this area).

Most of the research on word processing is limited to simple base words. This is because even with these words life is already complicated enough. However, it cannot be denied that the majority of words in normal language are complex. There are word inflections (e.g., different verb forms - plays, played, playing - and the plural form of nouns - dogs, plays), word derivations (drinkable, helplessness), and compound words (honeybee, basketball). This is the more an issue because it has been shown that the time to recognise the singular form of a noun not only depends on the frequency of the singular form, but also on the frequency of the plural form. So, even though the words "shoe" and "stove" have the same frequency (16 / million), the former is recognised faster than the latter because the frequency of "shoes" is much higher than that of "stoves" (65 / million vs. 4 / million). With the help of Boris New from Paris, we compared the impact of the frequency of the plural in the French and the English language (New, Brysbaert, Segui, Ferrand, & Rastle, 2004). Given that currently I am surrounded by people interested in morphology, it is likely that the importance of this topic will increase in the coming years.

For some time, I have been contacted regularly by the media to give forecasts and opinions about the introduction of the Euro in Continental Europe. This was particularly strong around the time the Euro was announced and introduced in two steps (1998-2002). Now, this interest has waned, although in hindsight I've had the pleasure to see that all my predictions were confirmed. Getting used to a new currency can be compared to getting used to a new language, with a lot of translations from the Euro to the old currency in order to access the meaning of the costs (which are still going on, in particular for items that are not often bought), but that does not lead to a real change in spending behaviour (except that for some time it made people less likely to try out new shops and products).

One cannot do good research without good knowledge of statistics and research methods. So, over the years I've dabbed into these topics quite regularly, whenever there was a need (either for research, teaching, or reviews). There is no point in listing the various topics here, although I can't resist mentioning the millisecond timer I helped to develop (Bovens & Brysbaert, 1990) and the review article I wrote about how to generate random numbers and how to randomise stimuli properly (Brysbaert, 1991). Finally, I've recently written three texts on power analaysis

, confidence intervals

, and mixed effects analyses

, which you may find helpful.

Publications

Listed below are my publications since 2001. Where possible links to Adobe PDF files are provided

1. Brysbaert, M. (2001). Prelexical phonological coding of visual words in Dutch: Automatic after all. Memory & Cognition, 29, 765-773. PDF

2. Ratinckx, E., Brysbaert, M., & Reynvoet, B. (2001). Bilateral field interactions and hemispheric asymmetry in number comparison. Neuropsychologia, 39, 335-345. PDF

3. Ratinckx, E., Brysbaert, M., & Vermeulen, E. (2001). CRT screens may give rise to biased estimates of interhemispheric transmission time in the Poffenberger paradigm. Experimental Brain Research, 136, 413-416. PDF

4. De Moor, W., Ghyselinck, M., & Brysbaert, M. (2001). The effects of frequency-of-occurence and age-of-acquisition in word processing. In F. Columbus (Ed.), Advances in psychology research, Vol. V (pp. 71-84). Huntington, NY: Nova Science Publishers.

5. Fias, W., Reynvoet, B., & Brysbaert, M. (2001). Are Arabic numerals processed as pictures in a Stroop interference task? Psychological Research, 65, 242-249. PDF

6. Sandra, D., Brysbaert, M., Frisson, S., & Daems, F. (2001). Paradoxen van de Nederlandse werkwoordspelling: De logica van dt-fouten. De Psycholoog, 36, 282-287.

7. Brysbaert, M., Van Wijnendaele, I., & Duyck, W. (2002). On the temporal delay assumption and the impact of non-linguistic context effects. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5, 199-201. DOC

8. Desmet, T., Brysbaert, M., & De Baecke, C. (2002). The correspondence between sentence production and corpus frequencies in modifier attachment. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55A, 879-896. PDF

9. Desmet, T., De Baecke, C., & Brysbaert, M. (2002). The influence of referential discourse context on modifier attachment in Dutch. Memory & Cognition, 30, 150-157. PDF

10. Drieghe, D., & Brysbaert, M. (2002). Strategic effects in associative priming with words, homophones, and pseudohomophones. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 951-961. PDF

11. Duyck, W. & Brysbaert, M. (2002). What number translation studies teach us about the lexico-semantic organisation in bilinguals. Psychologica Belgica, 42, 151-175. (on invitation) DOC

12. Grondelaers, S., Brysbaert, M., Speelman, D., & Geeraerts, D. (2002). Er als accessibility marker: on- en offline evidentie voor een procedurele duiding van presentatieve zinnen. Gramma/ITT, 9, 1-22. PDF

13. Ratinckx, E., & Brysbaert, M. (2002). Interhemispheric Stroop-like interference in number comparison: Evidence for strong interhemispheric integration of semantic number information. Neuropsychology, 16, 217-229. PDF

14. Reynvoet, B., Brysbaert, M., & Fias, W. (2002). Semantic priming in number naming. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55A, 1127-1139. PDF

15. Reynvoet, B., Caessens, B., & Brysbaert, M. (2002). Automatic stimulus-response associations may be semantically mediated. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 107-112. PDF

16. Van Wijnendaele, I., & Brysbaert, M. (2002). Visual word recognition in bilinguals: Phonological priming from the second to the first language. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28, 616-627. PDF

17. Alameda, J.R., Cuetos, F., & Brysbaert, M. (2003). The number 747 is named faster after seeing Boeing than after seeing Levis: Associative priming in the processing of multi-digit Arabic numerals. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56A, 1009-1019. PDF

18. Brysbaert, M. (2003). Hoe werkt tweetaligheid? Neuron, 8, 16-21. (on invitation; also available in French “Comment fonctionne le bilinguisme?”) PDF

19. Brysbaert, M. (2003). Bilingual visual word recognition: Evidence from masked phonological priming. In S. Kinoshita & S.J. Lupker (Eds.), Masked priming: The state-of-the-art (pp. 323-343). Hove, UK: Psychology Press. PDF

20. Brysbaert, M., & Drieghe, D. (2003). Please stop using word frequency data that are likely to be word length effects in disguise. Open-peer Commentary to Reichle, Rayner, & Pollatsek: "The E-Z Reader model of eye-movement control in reading: Comparisons to other models". Behavioral and Brain Sciences , 26, 479. PDF

21. Brysbaert, M. & Mitchell, D.C. (2003). Syntactic form frequencies: Assessing. In L. Nadel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science, Vol. 4 (pp. 316-318). London: Nature Publishing Group.

22. Brysbaert, M., & Van Wijnendaele, I. (2003). The importance of phonological coding in visual word recognition: Further evidence from second-language processing. Psychologica Belgica, 43, 249-258. PDF

23. Ghyselinck, M., Custers, R., & Brysbaert, M. (2003). Age-of-acquisition rations for 2332 Dutch words from 49 different semantic categories. Psychologica Belgica, 43, 181-214.

24. Anseel, F., Duyck, W., De Baene, W., & Brysbaert, M. (2004). Journal impact factors and self-citations: Implications for psychology journals. American Psychologist, 59, 49-51. PDF

25. Brysbaert, M. (2004). The importance of interhemispheric transfer for foveal vision: A factor that has been overlooked in theories of visual word recognition and object perception. Brain and Language, 88, 259-267. PDF

26. Drieghe, D., Brysbaert, M., Desmet, T., & De Baecke, C. (2004). Word skipping in reading: On the interplay of linguistic and visual factors. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 16, 79-103. PDF

27. Duyck, W., & Brysbaert, M. (2004). Forward and backward number translation requires conceptual mediation in both balanced and unbalanced bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30, 889-906. PDF

28. Duyck, W., Desmet, T., Verbeke, L., & Brysbaert, M. (2004). WordGen: A tool for word selection and non-word generation in Dutch, German, English, and French. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 36, 488.499.

29. Duyck, W., Drieghe, D., Diependaele, K., & Brysbaert, M. (2004). The size of the cross-lingual masked phonological priming effect does not depend on second language proficiency. Experimental Psychology, 51, 1-9. PDF

30. Ghyselinck, M., Custers, R., & Brysbaert, M. (2004). The effect of age of acquisition in visual word processing: Further evidence for the semantic hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 550-554. PDF

31. Ghyselinck, M., Lewis, M.B., & Brysbaert, M. (2004). Age of acquisition and the cumulative-frequency hypothesis: A review of the literature and a new multi-task investigation. Acta Psychologica, 115, 43-67. PDF

32. New, B., Brysbaert, M., Segui, J., Ferrand, L., & Rastle, K. (2004). The processing of singular and plural nouns in French and English. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 568-585. PDF

33. New, B., Pallier, C., Brysbaert, M., & Ferrand, L. (2004). Lexique 2: A new French lexical database. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 36, 516-524.

34. Reynvoet, B., & Brysbaert, M. (2004). Cross-notation number priming at different stimulus onset asynchronies in parity and naming tasks. Experimental Psychology, 51, 81-90. PDF

35. Vitu, F., Brysbaert, M., & Lancelin, D. (2004). A test of parafoveal-on-foveal effects with pairs of orthographically related words. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 16, 154-177.

36. Brysbaert, M. (2005). Number recognition in different formats. In J.I.D. Campbell (Ed.), Handbook of mathematical cognition. Hove: Psychology Press. PDF

37. Drieghe, D., Brysbaert, M., & Desmet, T. (2005). Parafoveal-on-foveal effects in text reading: Does an extra space make a difference? Vision Research, 45, 1693-1706. PDF

38. Belke, E., Brysbaert, M., Meyer, A.S., & Ghyselinck, M. (2005). Age of acquisition effects in picture naming: Evidence for a lexical-semantic competition hypothesis. Cognition, 96, B45-B54. PDF

39. Brysbaert, M., Drieghe, D., & Vitu, F. (2005). Word skipping: Implications for theories of eye movement control in reading. In G. Underwood (Ed.), Cognitive processes in eye guidance (pp. 53-77). Oxford: Oxford University Press.(PDF

40. Brysbaert, M., & Ghyselinck, M. (2006). The effect of age of acquisition: Partly frequency-related, partly frequency-independent. Visual Cognition, 13, 992-1011. Visual Cognition. PDF

41. Brysbaert, M. & Nazir, T. (2005). Visual constraints on written word recognition: Evidence from the optimal viewing position effect. Journal of Research in Reading, 28, 216-228.PDF

42. Desmet, T., De Baecke, C., Drieghe, D., Brysbaert, M., & Vonk, W. (2006). Relative clause attachment in Dutch: On-line comprehension corresponds to corpus frequencies when lexical variables are taken into account. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21, 453-485.PDF

43. Ratinckx, E., Brysbaert, M., & Fias, W. (2005). Naming two-digit Arabic numerals: Evidence from masked priming studies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31 1150-1163. . PDF

44. De Moor, W., Verguts, T., & Brysbaert, M. (2005). Testing the “multiple” in the multiple read-out model of visual word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 1502-1508. PDF

45. New, B., Ferrand, L., Pallier, C., & Brysbaert, M. (2006). Re-examining word length effects in visual word recognition: New evidence from the English Lexicon Project. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 13, 45-52. PDF

46. Rastle, K. & Brysbaert, M. (in press). Masked phonological priming effects in English: Are they real? Do they matter? Cognitive Psychology. PDF1 PDF2

47. Drieghe, D., Desmet, T. & Brysbaert, M. (in press). How Important are Linguistic Factors in Word Skipping during Reading? British Journal of Psychology. PDF

48. Brysbaert, M. & Dijkstra, T. (2006).Changing views on word recognition in bilinguals. In J. Morais & G. d’Ydewalle (Eds.), Bilingualism and second language acquisition. Brussels: KVAB. DOC

49. Hunter, Z.R., Brysbaert, M., & Knecht, S. (in press). Foveal word reading requires interhemispheric communication. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience PDF

50. De Brauwer, J., Duyck, W., & Brysbaert, M. (in press). The SNARC effect in the processing of second language number words: Further evidence for strong lexico-semantic connections. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. PDF

51. Duyck, W. & Brysbaert, M. (in press). Semantic access in number word translation: The role of cross-lingual lexical similarity. Experimental Psychology. PDF

52. New, B., Brysbaert, M., Veronis, J., & Pallier, C. (in press). The use of film subtitles to estimate word frequencies. Applied Psycholinguistics. DOC

53. Brysbaert, M. & Dumoulin, F. (2007). Do we all have to study American textbooks? Netherlands Journal of Psychology, 63, 58-67. PDF

54. Cai, Q., Lavidor, M., Brysbaert, M. Paulignan, Y., & Nazir, T.A. (in press). Cerebral lateralization of frontal lobe language processes and the lateralization of the posterior visual word processing system. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. PDF

55. Hunter, Z.R. & Brysbaert, M. (in press). Theoretical analysis of interhemispheric transfer costs in visual word recognition. Language and Cognitive Processes. PDF

Current Research Programme

Further Information
EDUCATION AND QUALIFICATIONS
1981-1986 : Licentiaat in de Psychologie, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium
1992 : PhD in Psychology, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium

EMPLOYMENT

REVIEW ACIIVITIES
I review quite a lot (on average some 2 manuscripts, grant applications, or conferences each week, in addition to the manuscripts I handle as an editor) for a wide range of journals and funding agencies. Unless prohibited by the journal or the funding agency, I reveal my name to the authors. I do this because I feel the authors have the right to know who gave them the review. In general, though, I do not like to be contacted by the authors about reviews I have made. In order to keep my work load within limits, I do not review more than 2 manuscripts for a journal per year (unless I am member of the editorial board).

PhD STUDENTS SUPERVISED

Marc Brysbaert (Professor)

MA, PhD (Leuven)

Contact: marc.brysbaert @ rhul.ac.uk

Direct phone: +44 (0)1784 443524

Office: W228

Summary of Research Interests

General Description of Research

Publications

Current Research Programme