Sentence examples for letter lengths from inspiring English sources

One-way ANOVAs confirmed that there were no significant differences in Kucera-Francis written frequency (Kucera and Francis, 1967) or imageability between the word sets in different test versions, letter lengths or word lists (P > 0.3 in all cases).

Factors such as letter length, provision of sender information in the letter, and personalization positively influence the keeping rate.

This result however, along with the letter length result, should be interpreted with caution.

Frequency and letter length were obtained using the program N-watch (Davis, 2005).

Effects of letter length (number of letters) could in principle also relate to phonotactic processing in that longer words may be more difficult to pronounce.

* p <.01 † p <.05 Total number of letters (letter length) for each pair showed a modest but reliable correlation with meaningfulness ratings (r =.06, p <.01).

The lists were matched for syllable and letter length, lexical frequency, bigram frequency, and orthographic distance [orthographic Levenshtein distance 20; Yarkoni et al., 2008] 1.

This method broadly agreed with the full regression model, with letter length, word frequency, and consistency showing reliable correlations with RT.

Biphone frequency and letter length were included primarily to ensure that effects of the other variables could not be attributed to correlations with these factors.

This was followed by phrase frequency (ß =.37, p <.0001), with letter length being the least predictive, although still reliable (ß =.07, p <.0001).

A more surprising finding from this analysis was that meaningfulness ratings were also predicted by overall letter length of the phrases.