When a word is encountered in a sentence (as opposed to in isolation) the meaning of the other words in the sentence can help constrain and identify the target word. In fact, the predictability of a word (i.e., how expected the word is, given the prior context) has an effect on reading times and fixation probabilities http://www.selleckchem.com/products/ABT-888.html (Balota et al., 1985, Drieghe et al., 2005, Ehrlich and Rayner,

1981, Kliegl et al., 2004, Rayner et al., 2011, Rayner and Well, 1996 and Zola, 1984; see Rayner, 1998 and Rayner, 2009 for reviews) as well as ERPs (Kutas & Hillyard, 1984; see Kutas & Federmeier, 2011 for a review). Tests for predictability effects in isolated word processing tasks are rare. However, some studies have recorded response times to target words presented after a sentence context (in word naming: Stanovich and West, 1979, Stanovich and West, 1981 and West and Stanovich, 1982; and lexical decision: Schuberth & Eimas, 1977) or when the target word is preceded by

a single prime word (in naming: De Groot, 1985 and Meyer and Schvaneveldt, 1971; and lexical decision: Schuberth & Eimas, 1977). Here, cross task comparisons reveal that the predictability effect for primed lexical decision (65 ms) is larger than for primed naming (38 ms; de Groot, 1985; cf. West & Stanovich, 1982), but these have not been directly compared to eye fixations in reading using the same materials and the same subjects. Therefore, as with frequency effects, discussed in Section 1.1, the degree to which subjects respond to inter-word information (i.e., predictability, or the target word’s fit click here into the sentence context) is also modulated by the type of processing the task requires. While the above studies suggest that frequency and predictability effects change across tasks, they are not the most direct test of such changes because the different tasks used (lexical decision,

naming, reading) elicit different types of responses (e.g., button presses, vocal responses, eye fixation times, and EEG). Thus, comparisons between tasks, such as Schilling et al., 1998, De Groot, 1985, Kuperman et al., 2013 and West and Stanovich, 1982 are suggestive of, but not conclusive about, how different tasks affect word processing, particularly fantofarone with respect to how word properties are emphasized. Therefore, we turn to a pair of tasks that can utilize the same stimuli, subjects, and response measures: reading for comprehension and proofreading. Kaakinen and Hyönä (2010) did just this: they compared frequency effects while subjects were reading sentences for comprehension vs. proofreading for spelling errors. We will return to Kaakinen and Hyönä (2010) shortly. First, however, we discuss possible task differences introduced by proofreading, introduce a framework within which to understand and predict these task differences, and discuss previous studies investigating proofreading.