We further propose that readers adaptively shift the degree of engagement of each process so as to efficiently meet task goals (for further discussion see Section 1.4) without expenditure of undue amounts of cognitive resources ( Table 1). It seems clear that all five of the above processes are relevant and have resources devoted to them during

normal reading (hence the check marks in those cells in Table 1); we now turn to how, in different types of proofreading, they may differ in importance relative to normal Quizartinib in vitro reading. When proofreading for errors that produce nonwords, the most obvious change is that both processes related to surface form—wordhood assessment and form validation—increase in importance (hence the up arrows in those cells in Table 1). It is unlikely, on the other hand, that these proofreaders would need to access content, integrate that content across words, or expend resources on word-context validation as thoroughly as during normal reading, because errors could be detected based almost exclusively on surface features and engaging in these processes might unnecessarily slow the proofreader down. Nevertheless,

if accessing content and performing sentence-level processing are not costly, it is possible Selleck Veliparib that these processes would not be de-emphasized, since sentence-level context makes reading more efficient overall ( Bicknell and Levy, 2012, Ehrlich and Rayner, 1981, Morton, 1964 and Rayner and Well, 1996). Thus, we predict that during proofreading for nonwords these processes would be Org 27569 either unchanged (represented by check marks) or de-emphasized (represented by down arrows) as compared with normal reading. Proofreading for errors

that produce wrong words, in contrast, would lead to a different prioritization of component processes: fit into sentence context rather than surface features of words is the critical indicator of error status. This task would de-emphasize (or leave unaffected) wordhood assessment, since wrong words still match to lexical entries, but more heavily emphasize form validation and content access (essential, for example, to identify an erroneous instance of trial that should have been trail, or vice versa). This task would also more heavily emphasize word-context validation. However, it is unclear how sentence-level integration would be affected by proofreading for wrong words in comparison with normal reading (and so all three possibilities are represented): it might be enhanced by the need to perform effective word-context validation, it might be reduced since the depth of interpretation required for successful normal reading may not be necessary or worthwhile for adequate proofreading for wrong words, or it could remain unchanged.