51, t = 2.80; total time: b = 55.08, t = 2.21, go-past time: b = 41.51, t = 2.20) with the exception of first fixation duration (b = 3.98, t = 0.60) and single fixation duration (b = 8.11, t = 0.98) whereas predictability was not modulated by task in any reading measure (all ts < 1.37) except for total time (b = 57.60, t = 2.72). These data suggest that, when checking for spelling errors that produce real but inappropriate words, proofreaders

still perform a qualitatively different type see more of word processing, which specifically amplifies effects of word frequency. However, while proofreaders do not appear to change their use of predictability during initial word recognition (i.e., first pass reading), later word processing does show increased effects of how well the word fits into the context of the sentence (i.e., during total time). We return to the issue of why this effect only appears on a late measure in Section 4.2. As with the reading time measures reported in Section 3.2.2.1, fixation probability measures showed a robust effect of task, with a higher probability of fixating the target (frequency items: z = 4.92, p < .001; predictability items: z = 5.41, p < .001), regressing into the target (frequency items: z = 5.60, p < .001; predictability items: z = 6.05, p < .001) and regressing out of the target (frequency items: z = 3.64, p < .001; predictability

items: z = 4.15, p < .001) in the proofreading task than in the reading task. Frequency yielded a main effect on probability of fixating the target (z = 5.77, p < .001) and probability of regressing out Atezolizumab clinical trial Calpain of the target (z = 2.56, p < .01) but not probability of regressing into the target (p > .15). Predictability yielded a marginal effect

on the probability of fixating the target (z = 1.77, p = .08) and a significant effect on the probability of regressing into the target (z = 5.35, p < .001) and regressing out of the target (z = 3.71, p < .001). There was a significant interaction between task and frequency on the probability of fixating the target (z = 2.14, p < .05) and a marginal interaction on the probability of regressing out of the target (z = 1.77, p = .08). All other interactions were not significant (all ps > .17). Thus, it seems as if the interactions seen in total time in Experiment 2 were not due to an increased likelihood of making a regression into or out of the target word, but rather to the amount of time spent on the word during rereading. As in Experiment 1, we tested for the three-way interaction between target type (frequency vs. predictability), independent variable value (high vs. low) and task (reading vs. proofreading) to evaluate whether the interactions between independent variable and task were different between the frequency stimuli and the predictability stimuli. As in Section 2.2.2.3, we tested for the three-way interaction in two key measures: gaze duration (Fig.