4 We analyzed six standard fixation time measures (Rayner, 1998 and Rayner, 2009): first pass measures, such as probability of making a first-pass fixation, first fixation duration (the duration of the first fixation on the target, regardless of how many fixations are made), single fixation duration (the duration of a fixation on the target when only one fixation is made), gaze duration (the sum of the duration of all fixations made on the target find more before leaving it),

as well as later measures, such as total viewing time (the sum of all fixations on the target, including rereading of it after first-pass reading) and go-past time (the sum of the duration of all fixations on the target and any rereading of words to the left of it until the target is passed to the right). In addition, we also analyzed the probability of regressing into the target and the probability of regressing out of the target. To assess how subjects approached the task of proofreading, we analyzed reading time measures on target words that did not contain an error (in either the reading or proofreading block) but did contain either a frequency (e.g., “The inner components are protected by a black metal/alloy increasing its lifespan.”) Selleck FRAX597 or predictability manipulation (e.g., “The skilled gardener went outside to pull up the weeds/roses along the driveway.”).

We analyzed local reading measures on the target words presented in italics above (but not presented in italics in the experiment; means and standard errors are in Table 4). For the following analyses, task (reading vs. proofreading) and independent variable (high vs. low) were entered as fixed effects in the LMMs. The LMMs were fit separately for frequency items and predictability

items (except for test of the three-way interaction, see Section 2.2.2.3). An interaction between independent variable (high vs. low frequency or high vs. low predictability) and task (reading vs. proofreading) would indicate that subjects were changing their sensitivity to these word properties ioxilan in order to perform the task. Results of the linear mixed effects analyses on fixation time measures are reported in Table 5. There was a significant effect of task for all fixation time measures for sentences with a frequency manipulation (single fixation duration: b = 8.86, t = 2.35; gaze duration: b = 14.71, t = 32.80; total time: b = 34.25, t = 4.63; go-past time: 34.79, t = 4.77) with the exception of first fixation duration (b = 4.26, t = 1.13) and for sentences with a predictability manipulation (first fixation duration: b = 12.17, t = 3.79; single fixation duration: b = 13.53, t = 3.93; gaze duration: b = 14.15, t = 3.08; total time: b = 28.02, t = 3.68; go-past time: 17.97, t = 2.57), indicating that, when checking for nonword errors subjects spent longer on target words throughout their encounter with them (i.e., across all eye movement measures).