Table 9.
Fixed effects in model of comprehension accuracy in Verb Bias sentences
| Fixed effect | Estimate | SE | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
||||
| (Intercept) | 3.274 | 0.142 | <0.001 | |
| Individual differences | VWM | 0.052 | 0.087 | 0.552 |
| Inhib. | 0.223 | 0.125 | 0.075 | |
| Phon. | 0.086 | 0.106 | 0.416 | |
| Lang. | 0.508 | 0.115 | <0.001 | |
| Speed | 0.000 | 0.078 | 0.999 | |
| Condition effects | Unambiguous | 0.109 | 0.128 | 0.392 |
| SC Bias | −0.231 | 0.261 | 0.377 | |
| Unambiguous × SC Bias | −0.238 | 0.201 | 0.236 | |
| Individual difference × Condition effect interactions | VWM × Unambiguous | 0.057 | 0.113 | 0.614 |
| VWM × SC Bias | −0.057 | 0.110 | 0.601 | |
| Inhib. × Unambiguous | −0.092 | 0.163 | 0.574 | |
| Inhib. × SC Bias | −0.137 | 0.159 | 0.388 | |
| Phon. × Unambiguous | −0.314 | 0.138 | 0.023 | |
| Phon. × SC Bias | 0.104 | 0.134 | 0.438 | |
| Lang. × Unambiguous | 0.312 | 0.162 | 0.054 | |
| Lang. × SC Bias | −0.270 | 0.159 | 0.089 | |
| Speed × Unambiguous | −0.016 | 0.101 | 0.875 | |
| Speed × SC Bias | 0.059 | 0.098 | 0.545 | |
| VWM × Unambiguous × SC | 0.165 | 0.219 | 0.453 | |
| Bias | ||||
| Inhib. × Unambiguous × SC | −0.076 | 0.318 | 0.812 | |
| Bias | ||||
| Phon. × Unambiguous × SC | −0.059 | 0.269 | 0.826 | |
| Bias | ||||
| Lang. × Unambiguous × SC | −0.555 | 0.318 | 0.081 | |
| Bias | ||||
| Speed × Unambiguous × SC | −0.347 | 0.197 | 0.079 | |
| Bias | ||||
Notes: Effects coding was used for condition effects. Condition effects here refer to the change in log odds of a correct response when the sentences were ambiguous (0.5) opposed to unambiguous (−0.5) and DO-biased (0.5) opposed to SC-biased (−0.5). Random intercepts and slopes for all condition effects for both subjects and items were also included in the model. “VWM” = Verbal working memory span; “Inhib” = Inhibitory control; “Speed” = Perceptual speed; “Phon.” = Phonological ability; “Lang.” = Language experience.