Table 3.
Eye-movement results of by-subject analysis.
| Comparison | Effect | β | SE | F | Sig. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cond. 1 vs. cond. 2 (±LEX) | t1 × cond. | 3.30 | 0.29 | F(1, 345) = 6.51 | * |
| t2 × cond. | −2.98 | 0.21 | F(1, 740) = 4.03 | * | |
| t3 × cond. | −0.51 | 0.19 | F(1, 1116) = 6.21 | * | |
| Cond. 1 vs. cond. 3 (±BT) | t1 × cond. | 0.47 | 0.34 | F(1, 270) = 1.64 | n.s. |
| t2 × cond. | −0.52 | 0.29 | F(1, 255) = 2.90 | n.s. | |
| t3 × cond. | 0.17 | 0.19 | F(1, 924) = 0.76 | n.s. | |
| Cond. 1 vs. cond. 3 (±DWNS) | t1 × cond. | −0.25 | 0.35 | F(1, 161) = 0.43 | n.s. |
| t2 × cond. | −0.24 | 0.34 | F(1, 181) = 0.46 | n.s. | |
| t3 × cond. | 0.23 | 0.26 | F(1, 273) = 0.71 | n.s. |
Formula = emplogit ~ (time1 + time2 + time3) * condition + (1 + (time1 + time2 + time3) * condition | subject/item) t2 = TIME2, t3 = TIME3. β's indicate effects of absence of cues. Asterisks indicate significance levels of effects.
*
p < 0.05;
**p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001. By-item analysis yielded a similar pattern of results.