72, t = 5.17; single

fixation duration: b = 22.65, t = 5.91; gaze duration: b = 31.03, t = 6.04; total time: b = 35.43, t = 4.56; go-past time: b = 41.80, t = 5.25) as was the effect of predictability (first fixation duration: b = 12.22, t = 4.08: single fixation duration: b = 14.95, t = 4.23; gaze http://www.selleckchem.com/products/Trichostatin-A.html duration: b = 13.71, t = 3.25; total time: b = 20.78, t = 3.85; go-past time: 22.71, t = 4.33). Of more interest for our present purposes are the interactions between task and our manipulations of frequency and predictability. Here, the results are quite clear: frequency effects were reliably larger during proofreading than during reading across all measures (single fixation duration: b = 13.12, t = 2.07; gaze duration: b = 29.91, t = 3.13; total time: b = 38.66, t = 2.52, go-past time: 34.86, t = 2.38) with the exception of first fixation duration (b = 3.92, ISRIB t < 1) whereas the effect of predictability was not modulated by task in any fixation time measure (all ts < 1.14). The interaction between task and the frequency effect in these data replicates Kaakinen

and Hyönä’s result (in a different language: English), showing that the effect of frequency becomes larger when proofreading for spelling errors that produce nonwords (see goal 1, in Section 1.4). In addition, the lack of an interaction with task for the predictability items helps to tease apart the possible interpretations of Kaakinen and Hyönä’s finding (see goal 2, in Section 1.4). While the more cautious reading account predicted that there should be a similar interaction for the predictability materials, instead, these data support the task-sensitive word processing account, in which subjects process words in proofreading in a qualitatively different way that makes more use of frequency information but does not make more use of predictability. These data suggest that readers have a

great deal of flexibility with respect to how they process words depending on their specific goal, making more or less use of each property of a word (e.g., its frequency or predictability from context) dependent on that feature’s Protein kinase N1 informativeness for the task at hand. Results of the logistic mixed-effects regression analyses on fixation probability measures are reported in Table 6. As with the reading time measures, in Section 2.2.2.1, fixation probability measures showed a robust effect of task, with a higher probability of fixating the target (frequency items: z = 2.49, p = .01; predictability items: z = 3.77, p < .001), regressing into the target (frequency items: z = 3.77, p < .001; predictability items: z = 5.43, p < .001) and regressing out of the target for frequency items (z = 4.47, p < .001) but not predictability items (all ps > .24). Frequency yielded a main effect on probability of fixating the target (z = 4.24, p < .001) but not the probability of regressing out of the target (p > .22) or the probability of regressing into the target (p > .84).