Suggestions(2)
Exact(7)
We used (G_1 s)) that was estimated for each participant in Experiment 1 to compute (bar{X}_{p1}(s)) for each participant.
The saccade distributions based on size biases show a clear peak around the preferred size for almost every participant in Experiment 1a (size-relevant, Fig. 3c) but not in Experiment 1b (contrast-relevant, Fig. 3e).
Behavioural data from one participant in Experiment 1 were lost due to human error.
None of them had been a participant in Experiment 1. Design and structure of the experiment were the same as in Experiment 1. Eighty-four three-syllable low frequency words with dominant stress were selected, with a frequency range 1 26 (mean = 7.43) and 88% consistent neighbors (i.e., neighbors with the same ending and the same stress pattern).
One participant in Experiment 5A failed to provide probability rating so was removed from the final analyses.
The total amount of data excluded from data analyses was no more than 36%32%2% incorrect, 4% missed/double responses) for any one participant in experiment one, and 8% in experiment two.
Similar(53)
Hence, we doubled the number of participants for Experiment 2. Second, participants in Experiment 1 may not have settled on a particular strategy and, hence, their data may represent a mixture of parallel and serial processing.
None of the participants in Experiment 2 participated in the first experiment.
The participants in Experiment 2A also participated in Experiment 2B.
Two participants in Experiment 1 also participated in this experiment.
None of the participants had participated in Experiment 1a.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.
Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com