Table 1.
Average percentage scores [standard deviations] on the LexTALE, Spelling test and Lexical Decision task for the bilingual and monolingual group.
T-values [degrees of freedom] of t-tests in the last 2 columns.
Table 2.
Summary of the characteristics of the translation equivalent sentences and the restricted set of sentences matched on information density (averages of Word Length, Number of Words per sentence, Number of Characters per sentence, Number of Content words per sentence, Word Frequency and Content word frequency) across languages.
Fig 1.
Interaction-effect of number of words and language on reading times.
Sentence reading time (log-transformed on the y-axis) in function of number of words (on the x-axis) per sentence for bilinguals reading in L1 and L2. The standard errors are indicated by whiskers on the graph.
Fig 2.
Interaction-effect of number of words and word length on reading times.
Sentence reading time (log-transformed on the y-axis) in function of average word length per sentence (on the x-axis) and number of words per sentence. The 95% confidence interval for the main effect of word length is indicated in grey.
Fig 3.
Interaction-effect of language and word length on fixation count.
Fixation count per sentence (on the y-axis) in function of average word length per sentence (on the x-axis) for bilinguals reading in L1 and L2. The standard errors are indicated by whiskers on the graph.
Fig 4.
Effect of L2 Proficiency on Fixation Count.
Fixation count per sentence (on the y-axis) dependent on the participant’s L2 composite proficiency score (on the x-axis). The 95% confidence interval is indicated by the dotted lines.
Fig 5.
Interaction-effect of Word Frequency and Number of Words on Fixation Duration.
Average fixation duration per sentence (on the y-axis) dependent on average content word frequency per sentence (log-transformed on the x-axis) and number of words per sentence for Bilinguals reading in L1 and L2. The 95% confidence interval of the main effect of content word frequency per language is indicated in grey.
Fig 6.
Interaction-effect of Number of Words, Word Length and Language on Fixation Duration.
Average fixation duration per sentence (on the y-axis) dependent on average word length per sentence (on the x-axis) and number of words per sentence for bilinguals reading in L1 and L2. The 95% confidence interval for the main effect of word length per language is indicated in grey.
Fig 7.
Interaction-effect of Language and Number of Words on Saccade Length.
Average saccade length per sentence (on the y-axis) dependent on average number of words per sentence (on the x-axis) for bilinguals reading in L1 and L2. Standard errors are indicated with whiskers on the graph.
Fig 8.
Interaction-effect of Language and Word Length on Regression Rate.
The probability of making a regression (on the y-axis) dependent on the average word length per sentence (on the x-axis) for reading in L1 and L2. The standard errors are indicated by whiskers on the graph.
Table 3.
Eye movement variable averages for young and older children and adults from Rayner’s [5] and Blythe et al.’s [4] study and eye movement variable averages for bilingual L1/ L2 and monolingual reading.
Differences between the means are reported in the last two columns [percentage] in each section.
Fig 9.
Interaction-effect of Word Length and Number of Words on Reading Time.
The sentence reading time (log-transformed on the y-axis) dependent on average word length per sentence (on the x-axis) and number of words per sentence for monolinguals and bilinguals reading in L1. The 95% confidence interval for the main effect of word length is indicated in grey.
Fig 10.
Interaction-effect of Word Frequency and Number of Words on Reading Time.
Sentence reading time (log transformed on the y-axis) in function of average content word frequency per sentence (log transformed on the x-axis) and number of words per sentence for monolinguals and bilinguals reading in L1. The 95% confidence interval of the main effect of content word frequency is indicated in grey.
Fig 11.
Interaction-effect of Word Length and Bilingualism on Fixation Count.
Fixation count per sentence (on the y-axis) in function of average word length per sentence (on the x-axis) for bilinguals reading in L1 and monolinguals (separate regression lines). Standard errors are indicated by whiskers on the graph.
Fig 12.
Interaction-effect of Number of Words and Bilingualism on Fixation Count.
Fixation count per sentence (on the y-axis) in function of number of words per sentence (on the x-axis) for monolinguals and bilinguals reading in L1 (separate regression lines). The standard errors are indicated by whiskers on the graph.
Fig 13.
Interaction-effect of Word Frequency and Number of Words on Fixation Count.
Fixation count per sentence (on the y-axis) in function of average content word frequency per sentence (log-transformed on the x-axis) and average number of words per sentence. The 95% confidence interval of the main effect of content word frequency is indicated in grey.
Fig 14.
Interaction-effect of Word Frequency and Number of Words on Skipping Rate.
The probability of skipping a word in first pass reading (on the y-axis) dependent on average word length per sentence (on the x-axis), number of words per sentence and average content word frequency per sentence (log-transformed in the separate panels). The 95% confidence intervals for the effects of word length per content word frequency value are indicated in grey.
Table 4.
A comparison of the reading meta-analysis of Rayner [17], based on sentence reading research, and our natural L1 reading data.
In our analysis we use first pass skipping rate (52%), but in the table we report total skipping rate (41.5%).