Table 5.

Analysis of Word Identification Performed Separately on Easy and Hard Word Identification Performance

5a: Easy Words
	Estimate	SE	Z	p
(Intercept)	0.52	0.36	1.44	0.151
Comparisons with VLNC+V Condition
unrestricted	−0.29	0.40	−0.73	0.465
VLNC-V	−0.87	0.40	−2.19	0.028*
VLF-V	−1.06	0.40	−2.65	0.008**
VLF+V	−0.90	0.40	−2.26	0.024*
VLN	−1.18	0.40	−2.97	0.003**
VL	−0.52	0.40	−1.31	0.189
none	−1.06	0.40	−2.66	0.008**
5b: Hard Words
	Estimate	SE	Z	p
(Intercept) −0.46 0.39			−1.17	0.242
Comparisons with VLNC+V Condition
unrestricted	−0.46	0.49	−0.95	0.341
VLNC-V	−1.22	0.49	−2.51	0.012*
VLF-V	−0.81	0.49	−1.67	0.096
VLF+V	−1.01	0.49	−2.07	0.038*
VLN	−1.38	0.49	−2.81	0.005**
VL	−0.82	0.49	−1.70	0.090
none	−1.38	0.49	−2.81	0.005**

The effect of exposure condition on identification performance with Easy (Table 5a) and Hard (Table 5b) words, assessed separately, using a logistic/binomial mixed-effects regression analysis with the VLNC+V condition as the baseline for comparison with the other conditions. As shown in Tables 5a and 5b, all conditions except the Unrestricted and VL conditions differed from the VLNC+V condition for performance on easy words. A similar pattern was observed in the case of Hard words, except that differences for the VLF-V and VL conditions were marginal.