Experiment 1 revealed no evidence that the effect of the predictability of a word in the sentence differed in size between reading and proofreading (there was no interaction between predictability and task in any reading measure). Our interpretation of this result was that predictability information is not a more useful source of information when checking

for nonwords as compared to when reading for comprehension. However, when the errors that must be detected are real, wrong words, the only way to detect an error is to determine whether the word makes sense in the sentence context, making predictability a more relevant word property for error detection. Thus, if our interpretation is correct that readers can qualitatively change the type of word processing they perform according to task demands, we may see the effect GDC-0941 datasheet of predictability become larger in proofreading for wrong words (relative to reading). As with analyses of error-free items in Experiment 1, task (reading vs. proofreading) and independent variable

(high vs. low) were entered as fixed effects in the LMMs. Separate LMMs were fit for frequency Proteases inhibitor items and predictability items (except for the test of the three-way interaction, see Section 3.2.2.3). There was a significant main effect of task for all fixation time measures for sentences with a frequency manipulation (first fixation duration: b = 24.14, t = 5.49; single fixation duration: b = 33.22, t = 5.77; gaze duration: b = 51.75, t = 8.25; total time: b = 155.25, t = 5.72; go-past time: b = 91.48, t = 6.00) and for sentences with a predictability manipulation (first fixation duration: b = 18.05, t = 4.87; single fixation duration: b = 19.73, t = 4.95; gaze duration: b = 44.79, t = 6.99; total time: b = 112.78, t = 6.59; go-past time:

69.06, t = 6.08), indicating that, when checking for spelling errors that produce wrong words subjects took more time, spending longer on the target words throughout their encounter with them (i.e., across all eye movement measures). Furthermore, the coefficients that estimate the effect Urocanase size are notably larger in the second experiment, when subjects were checking for more subtle errors (letter transpositions that produced real words that were inappropriate in the context). The effect of frequency was robustly found across all reading time measures (first fixation: b = 10.35, t = 2.61; single fixation duration: b = 14.73, t = 2.95; gaze duration: b = 25.56, t = 3.66; total time: b = 36.53, t = 2.33; go-past time: b = 47.18, t = 3.80) as was the effect of predictability (first fixation duration: b = 6.66, t = 2.08: single fixation duration: b = 11.04, t = 3.12; gaze duration: b = 20.95, t = 4.14; total time: b = 49.27, t = 4.23; go-past time: 29.94, t = 3.13). Of more interest for our present purposes are the interactions between task and our manipulations of frequency and predictability.