PSchoknecht
commented
4 months ago Added text: Figure 5 shows the Bayes factor analysis of the self- paced reading data. There was evidence against syntactic interference under all priors in the pre-critical and critical region. Only in the spill-over region, there was anecdotal evidence (BF10 = 2.8) evidence for a small syntactic interference effect (± 8 ms). Similarly, there was evidence against the interaction under all priors in the pre-critical and spill-over regions. Only in the critical region, there was anecdotal evidence (BF10 = 1.4) for a small interaction effect (± 8 ms). Figure 11 shows the Bayes factor analysis of the ERP data. There was anecdotal evidence for a very small syntactic interference effect (± 0.2 μV ) on the N400 and evidence against larger effects (> 1 μV ). There was evidence against an interaction under all priors in the N400 spatio-temporal window. In a new analysis of the P600 spatio-temporal window, there was anecdotal evidence for a very small interaction (± 0.2 μV ) and evidence against larger interaction effects (> 1 μV ). There was unequivocal evidence against an effect of syntactic interference in the P600. Taken these Bayes factor results together (at best anecdotal evidence for small effects in the size of an 8 ms reading time difference or an 0.2 μV difference in brain responses), we are confident that in our data, there was no evidence for an effect of considerable size of neither syntactic interference nor the interaction.
In this response, add some interpretation of the Figures, don't just leave it for the editor to figure out.