Overall reading time did not differ between consistent and inconsistent texts, but participants judged consistent texts more accurately (d = 0.84), indicating inconsistencies were more often overlooked than falsely perceived¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r? · q3 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i3 Average overall reading time did not differ between consistent and inconsistent versions (d < 0.01), while consistency judgement accuracy was significantly higher for consistent texts (Cohen's d = 0.84). → Catharina Tibken 2025

Evidence¶

Catharina Tibken 2025¶

Catharina Tibken, Simon P. Tiffin-Richards. (2025). Reading behavior as an indicator of comprehension monitoring when reading expository texts. Metacognition and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-025-09440-2

q3 · i3 · causal · r?

Descriptive statistics and paired t-tests over 1870 analyzed trials from the eye-tracking experiment. Table 1 prints consistency judgement accuracy of 85% (SD 36) for consistent versus 48% (SD 50) for inconsistent texts, t = 18.2, Cohen's d = 0.84 [0.75, 0.94]; reading time showed d < 0.01.

"Average overall read- ing time did not differ between consistent and inconsistent versions of the expository texts. Participants were, however, significantly more accurate at judging the consistency of consis- tent, compared to inconsistent versions of the texts. This suggests that participants were more likely to overlook an inconsistency, than to perceive an inconsistency where there was none."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• First-pass reading measures at the target word showed no main effect on inconsistency identification, and lookbacks from the target word were associated with lower accuracy in consistent texts
• Reanalysis of the pre-target text (rereading time and revisit frequency) interacted significantly with consistency condition in predicting consistency judgement accuracy
• Longer first-pass reading time at the final word of the target sentence was negatively associated with consistency judgement accuracy
• Reanalysis of the inconsistent target word (longer rereading time and higher revisit probability) is associated with higher consistency judgement accuracy in inconsistent texts, but not in consistent texts
• Consistency condition was significant in all GLMM models, with higher consistency judgement accuracy for consistent than inconsistent texts — a narrower finding that bears on this claim