Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2017 Nov 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2016 Jul 18;42(11):1839–1857. doi: 10.1037/xhp0000253

Table 1.

Word n Lexical Characteristics (Mean and Standard Deviation) in Experiments 1 and 2

Experiment 1. Eye-Tracking Expected Unexpected Incongruent t[E-U] t[E-I] t[U-I]
Word Length 4.75 (.92) 4.75 (.92) 4.75 (.92) 0 0 0
Word Frequency 10.42 (1.25) 10.09 (1.68) 10.44 (.90) 1.20 1.43 .13
Concreteness 517 (105) 496 (94) 501 (68) .25 .99 .33
Imageability 542 (86) 521 (74) 534 (63) .15 .58 1.03

Experiment 2. ERP Expected Unexpected Incongruent t[E-U] t[E-I] t[U-I]

1. Word Length 4.82 (1.20) 5.68 (1.99) 5.29 (1.37) 4.96 3.46 2.16
2. Word Frequency 9.81 (1.46) 9.61 (1.42) 9.59 (1.22) 1.26 1.57 .22
3. Concreteness 522 (104) 508 (104) 511 (86) 1.27 1.09 .30
4. Imageability 547 (86) 530 (81) 534 (72) 1.93 1.56 .50

Note. Word Length in characters. Word frequency is the natural log transformed rate of occurrence per million from the CoCA (Davies, 2008). Concreteness and Imageability are measured on a scale from 100 (low) to high (high). Rightmost columns present t-statistics comparing Expected (E), Unexpected (U), and Incongruent (I) conditions. Statistically significant t-statistics are bolded.