Fig 1.
Residual reading times for regions wh−1 through wh+3 from Paape’s original study [1].
Table 1.
Pre-study: Mean acceptability ratings and standard errors (in parentheses) by sentence type and condition.
Fig 2.
Reading measures by region for SOI stimuli (Experiment 1).
All measures log-transformed and residualized against region length in characters; error bars show 95% intervals.
Table 2.
Experiment 1: Results for question response accuracy and response times (SOI stimuli).
can = canonicity, el = elision.
Table 3.
Experiment 1: Results for first-pass reading times (SOI stimuli).
can = canonicity, el = elision.
Table 4.
Experiment 1: Results for regression-path durations (SOI stimuli).
can = canonicity, el = elision.
Table 5.
Experiment 1: Results for total reading times (SOI stimuli).
can = canonicity, el = elision.
Fig 3.
Reading measures by region for RRC stimuli (Experiment 1).
All measures log-transformed and residualized against region length in characters; error bars show 95% intervals.
Table 6.
Experiment 1: Results for question response accuracy and response times (RRC stimuli).
amb = ambiguity, el = elision.
Table 7.
Experiment 1: Results for first-pass reading times (RRC stimuli).
amb = ambiguity, el = elision.
Table 8.
Experiment 1: Results for regression-path durations (RRC stimuli).
amb = ambiguity, el = elision.
Table 9.
Experiment 1: Results for total reading times (RRC stimuli).
amb = ambiguity, el = elision.
Fig 4.
Reading measures by region for TLA stimuli (Experiment 1).
All measures log-transformed and residualized against region length in characters; error bars show 95% intervals.
Table 10.
Experiment 1: Results for question response accuracy and response times (TLA stimuli).
amb = ambiguity, el = elision.
Table 11.
Experiment 1: Results for first-pass reading times (TLA stimuli).
amb = ambiguity, el = elision.
Table 12.
Experiment 1: Results for regression-path durations (TLA stimuli).
amb = ambiguity, el = elision.
Table 13.
Experiment 1: Results for total reading times (TLA stimuli).
amb = ambiguity, el = elision.
Fig 5.
Rating distributions from the pilot study by participant.
Fig 6.
Estimated power (smoothed) as a function of interaction size, sample size and residual variance in total reading times at the critical region by stimulus type.
Fig 7.
Reading measures by region (Experiment 2).
All measures log-transformed and residualized against region length in characters; error bars show 95% intervals.
Table 14.
Experiment 2: Results for question response accuracy and response times.
case = case marking, ord = word order.
Table 15.
Experiment 2: Results for question response accuracy by probe type.
case = case marking, ord = word order, pt = probe type.
Table 16.
Experiment 2: Results for first-pass reading times.
case = case marking, ord = word order.
Table 17.
Experiment 2: Results for regression-path durations.
case = case marking, ord = word order.
Table 18.
Experiment 2: Results for total reading times.
case = case marking, ord = word order.
Fig 8.
Estimated power (smoothed) as a function of interaction size, sample size and residual variance in total reading times at the critical region.
Fig 9.
Comparison of effects between Paape [1] and Experiment 2.