Both text incongruency and knowledge inaccuracy produce increased reading times on target sentences¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3 · i0–i1
Currency · newest study 2022 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i1 Incongruent targets were read longer than congruent targets (d = .26) and false targets were read longer than true targets (d = .26). → Moort 2022 q3 i0 An accuracy spill-over effect was observed, with longer reading times on spill-over sentences following false than true targets (d = .13), a negligible effect size. → Moort 2022 (2)

Evidence¶

Moort 2022¶

Moort, M. L. van, Koornneef, A. W., Wilderjans, T. F., & Broek, P. W. van den. (2022). Validation processes and reading purpose: Is validation against knowledge and prior text influenced by reading goal? Journal of Educational Psychology, 114(7), 1533-1552. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000769

q3 · i1 · causal · r2

Mixed-effects linear regression on target-sentence reading times in the self-paced reading experiment showed "inconsistency effects of congruency" and "accuracy," both with d = .26, indicating that both text-internal incongruency and inaccuracy with background knowledge increased reading times.

"we observed inconsistency effects of congruency (b = .08, SE = .01, t = 7.62, p , .001, d = .26) and accuracy (b = .12, SE = .01, t = 11.08, p , .001, d = .26), with longer reading times for incongruent (M = 2707 ms, SE = 27) than congruent (M = 2493 ms, SE = 25) targets and longer reading times for false (M = 2765 ms, SE = 28) than true targets (M = 2438 ms, SE = 24)"

Moort 2022 (2)¶

Moort, M. L. van, Koornneef, A. W., Wilderjans, T. F., & Broek, P. W. van den. (2022). Validation processes and reading purpose: Is validation against knowledge and prior text influenced by reading goal? Journal of Educational Psychology, 114(7), 1533-1552. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000769

q3 · i0 · causal · r2

On spill-over sentences (sentence 9), mixed-effects regression showed "spill-over effects of accuracy" with d = .13, a negligible effect size, indicating that the processing disruption from knowledge inaccuracies extended into the next sentence after the target.

"we observed spill-over effects of accuracy ( b = .06, SE = .01, t = 5.88, p , .001, d = .13), with longer reading times on spill-over sentences following"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Reading goals affect post-validation representation-building rather than validation processes directly — related
• Incongruent items in school-topic tasks are generally associated with longer response times and lower accuracy, patterns consistent with inhibitory control recruitment — a broader claim this one bears on
• Reading goal × congruency interaction on memory: study goal improves memory for congruent but not incongruent targets — related
• Incongruent dot comparison trials are less accurate and slower than congruent trials, consistent with an added inhibition step — related
• Adolescents show lower accuracy and longer reaction times on counterintuitive misconception trials than on matched control trials in science and maths — related
• Flanker task produces congruency effects in reaction time and accuracy in twelve-year-old children — related
• Smaller response-time differences between incongruent and congruent trials (better inhibition) correlate with higher mathematics scores — related
• Gesture–speech incongruency disrupts multimodal processing, increasing response times and error rates — related
• Dot Task accuracy decreased from congruent to incongruent to mixed trials, with condition accuracies positively correlated — related
• Reading goals do not influence validation processes: no goal × congruency or goal × accuracy interactions on reading times — related