Table 10. LMM Analyses on the Target Word When Display Change Awareness Was Included as a Variable.

	SP			FFD			GD			Go-past			TFD
Factor	b	SE	z	b	SE	t	b	SE	t	b	SE	t	b	SE	t
Note. Significant terms are marked in bold, and marginally significant items are underlined. b = regression coefficient.
(Intercept)	.06	.08	.76	5.53	.02	367	5.58	.02	334	5.76	.02	237	5.71	.02	241
Preview
Syntactically infelicitous alternative versus identical	−.15	.06	−2.61	.09	.02	4.81	.11	.02	5.77	.16	.03	5.98	.10	.02	4.26
Pseudocharacter versus syntactically infelicitous alternative	−.22	.06	−3.88	.01	.01	.99	.03	.02	1.74	.01	.02	.62	.03	.02	1.91
Frequency: High versus low	−.02	.05	−.35	.02	.01	1.30	.02	.01	1.62	.04	.02	2.27	.03	.02	2.11
Change awareness	−.66	.15	−4.34	.08	.03	2.62	.11	.03	3.47	.13	.05	2.83	.16	.05	3.63
Interactions
Syntactically Infelicitous Alternative Versus Identical × Frequency	.51	.11	4.47	−.09	.03	−2.99	−.09	.03	−3.04	−.13	.04	−3.10	−.03	.03	−1.10
Pseudocharacter Versus Syntactically Infelicitous Alternative × Frequency	−.10	.11	−.87	.04	.03	1.34	.04	.03	1.42	.07	.04	1.85	.01	.03	.48
Syntactically Infelicitous Alternative Versus Identical × Change Awareness	−.18	.11	−1.59	.05	.03	1.41	.10	.04	2.63	.09	.05	1.73	.11	.04	2.44
Pseudocharacter Versus Syntactically Infelicitous Alternative × Change Awareness	−.13	.11	−1.14	−.00	.03	−.01	.01	.03	.29	.10	.04	2.31	.00	.03	.07
Frequency × Change Awareness	−.04	.09	−.44	−.03	.02	−1.34	−.01	.03	−.21	.03	.03	1.09	.00	.03	.15
Syntactically Infelicitous Alternative Versus Identical × Frequency × Change Awareness	.03	.23	.14	−.06	.06	−1.10	−.07	.06	−1.12	−.08	.09	−.96	−.06	.06	−.98
Pseudocharacter Versus Syntactically Infelicitous Alternative × Frequency × Change Awareness	−.03	.23	−.14	−.04	.06	−.61	−.06	.06	−.98	.03	.08	.33	−.06	.06	−1.08