analysis plan: prediction 3

[jessb0t]

From GB:

Test whether post-error reading (accuracy and/or rt) differs in the context of a negative vs positive passage, with the rationale being that errors are negatively valenced and so there is a greater match/priming effect in negative passages. To test, you would look only at the first half of passages and compare post-error effects for positive and negative passages.

Hypotheses:

1. PES and PIA will be accentuated in positive passages versus negative passages.
2. RT and accuracy following errors will be slower/higher than the associated post-correct measures.

Error: mispronunciation, word stress error, duplication, or false start (either focus on the most common of these or include "error type" as a factor in our analyses) PES (post-error slowing): calculated by determining the reading rate (syllables/second) for the five words following an error in the first half of passages and determining the delta between positive and negative passage types, as well as the delta between PES and post-correct timing by the selection of words that are matched to the error word in various dimensions of interest PIA (post-error improvement in accuracy): calculated by 1 - percentage disfluency (disfluent syllables/total syllables) in the five words following an error and determining the delta between positive and negative passage types, as well as the delta between PIA and post-correct accuracy by the selection of words that are matched to the error word in various dimensions of interest

[jessb0t]

Possible Confounds

10/23/2021: The following seem most likely to be potential confounds and should be taken into consideration during analyses:

• word frequency
• word length (both in syllables and letters)
• cumulative surprisal

[jessb0t]

Exclusions

• less than 75% accuracy on challenge questions
• answers "I learned my other language(s) first and English later." with age of English acquisition higher than 5 years :question: