The pattern of results changed, though, in later measures. Here, reading time on the target increased more in the proofreading block when checking for wrong words (Experiment 2) than when checking for nonwords (Experiment 1) for total time on the target (b = 191.27, t = 3.88; see Fig. 2) but not significantly DAPT in go-past time (t < .32). There was no significant interaction between task and experiment on the probability of fixating or regressing into the target (both ps > .14) but there was a significant interaction on the probability

of regressing out of the target (z = 2.92, p < .001) with a small increase in regressions out of the target in Experiment 1 (.07 in reading compared to .08 in proofreading) and a large effect in Experiment 2 (.09 in reading compared to .18 in proofreading). These data confirm that the proofreading task in Experiment 2 (checking for real, but inappropriate words for the

context) was more difficult than the proofreading task in Experiment GDC 0199 1 (checking for nonwords). Early reading time measures increased more in Experiment 1 than Experiment 2, suggesting that these errors were easier to detect upon initial inspection. However, in later measures, reading time increased more in Experiment 2 than in Experiment 1, suggesting these errors often required a subsequent inspection to detect. Let us now consider these data in light of the theoretical framework laid out in the Introduction. Based on consideration of five component processes central to normal reading—wordhood assessment, form validation, content access, integration, and word-context validation—and how different types of proofreading

are likely to emphasize or de-emphasize each of these component however processes, this framework made three basic predictions regarding the outcome of our two experiments, each of which was confirmed. Additionally, several key patterns in our data were not strongly predicted by the framework but can be better understood within it. We proceed to describe these cases below, and then conclude this section with a brief discussion of the differences in overall difficulty of the two proofreading tasks. Our framework made three basic predictions, each confirmed in our data. First, overall speed should be slower in proofreading than in normal reading, provided that errors are reasonably difficult to spot and that readers proofread accurately. The errors we introduced into our stimuli all involved single word-internal letter swaps expected a priori to be difficult to identify, and our readers achieved very high accuracy in proofreading—higher in Experiment 1 (95%) than in Experiment 2 (91%). Consistent with our framework’s predictions under these circumstances, overall reading speed (e.g., TSRT – total sentence reading time) was slower during proofreading than during normal reading in both experiments.