2). The results of these analyses revealed that neither the three-way interaction for gaze duration (b = 5.59, t < 1) nor total time (b = 2.26, t < 1) were significant, suggesting that, when proofreading for wrong word errors, subjects processed words in a way that magnified the effects of both word frequency and predictability in a similar way. However, when gaze duration was analyzed separately by stimulus set, the task by frequency interaction was significant but the task see more by predictability interaction was not, and the three-way interaction, while not

significant, does suggest a trend in that direction. Thus, the data suggest that, in first pass reading, subjects certainly demonstrated increased sensitivity to frequency information (discussed above) and demonstrated

only slight increased sensitivity to predictability information (certainly more than they demonstrated increased sensitivity to predictability information when proofreading in Experiment 1). However, the substantial interaction between task and predictability does not Selleckchem SP600125 emerge until further inspection of the word (i.e., total time, see Section 4.2). The analyses reported in this section were performed on filler items from the reading task and items that contained errors in the proofreading task to assess the degree to which proofreading sentences that actually contain errors differs from reading error-free sentences for comprehension. When encountered in the reading block, sentences contained no errors and constituted the control sentences taken from Johnson (2009; i.e., “The runners trained for the marathon on the track behind the high school.”). When encountered in the proofreading block, sentences contained errors; In Experiment 1 errors constituted nonwords (i.e., “The runners trained for the marathon on the trcak behind the high school.”) and in Experiment 2 errors constituted wrong words (i.e., “The runners trained for the marathon on the trial behind the high school.”). To Ketotifen investigate

how errors were detected, we compared both global reading measures (reading time on the entire sentence) and local reading measures on the target word (shown in italics, above, but not italicized in the experiments) between the correct trials (when encountered in the reading block) and error trials (when encountered in the proofreading block). Task (reading vs. proofreading) and experiment (Experiment 1 vs. Experiment 2) were entered as fixed effects. We analyzed two global reading measures: total sentence reading time (TSRT; the total amount of time spent reading the sentence) and reading rate (words per minute: WPM), which index general reading efficiency ( Rayner, 1998 and Rayner, 2009), to assess the general difficulty of the proofreading task, compared to the reading task, across the two experiments (see Table 10). More efficient reading is reflected by shorter total sentence reading time and faster reading rate (more words per minute).