Eye-tracking and assessment of syllable frequency manipulation effect in individuals with a potential risk of dyslexia

GRADO EN ESTUDIOS INGLESES Curso académico 2022/2023 TÍTULO: Eye-tracking and assessment of syllable frequency manipulation effect in individuals with a potential risk of dyslexia. Alumno/a: Nerea García Zambrana Tutor/a: María Heliodora Cuenca Villarín TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………………………….1 2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND……………………………………………………….. 3 2.1. THE ORIGINS OF THE MENTAL SYLLABARY THEORY……….…….…...3 2.2. PREVIOUS STUDIES ON SYLLABLE FREQUENCY EFFECT IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE FOR DYSLEXIC INDIVIDUALS……………………..….4 2.3. PREVIOUS STUDIES ON SYLLABLE FREQUENCY EFFECT IN SPANISH DYSLEXIC INDIVIDUALS.……….…………………………….……………...….. 6 2.4. THE USE OF EYE-TRACKING ………………...……………………………... 7 3.METHODOLOGY…………………………………………………………………….…… 8 3.1. PRODUCTION …………..……………………………………...……………… 8 3.1.1 Participants…………………………………………………………...….8 3.1.2. Speech materials ………………………………….………...…………..9 3.1.3. Recording Procedure …………………………….………………...… 10 3.1.4. Recording Analysis ……………………………………….……….… 11 3.1.5 Statistics ……………………………………………………………….11 4. RESULTS………………………………………………………………………………. 11 4.1. RESULTS FOR THE ENGLISH EXPERIMENT ……………………..…….. 11 4.1.1. DISYLLABIC HIGH-FREQUENCY PSEUDOWORDS VERSUS DISYLLABIC LOW-FREQUENCY PSEUDOWORDS…………………….….11 a) Differences in the participants’ reaction times……………………………….…..12 b) Mean fixation times on the first syllable …...…………………………….…….. 12 c) Mean fixation times on the second syllable ……………………………………. 13 d) Comparison of results on reaction times and fixation times………………….… 13 4.1.2. DISYLLABIC PSEUDOWORDS COMBINING HIGH-FREQUENCY AND LOW-FREQUENCY SYLLABLES…………………………………….… 14 a) Mean fixation times on the first syllable …………………………………..………. 14 b) Mean fixation times on the second syllable ……………………….………………. 15 c) Comparison of results on reaction times and fixation times …………….………… 15 4.1.3 SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS FOR THE ENGLISH EXPERIMENT…………………………………………………………..……….… 16 4.2. RESULTS FOR THE SPANISH EXPERIMENT …………...………….…….. 16 4.2.1. DISYLLABIC HIGH-FREQUENCY PSEUDOWORDS VERSUS DISYLLABIC LOW-FREQUENCY PSEUDOWORDS ….…….………………… 16 a) Differences in the participants’ reaction times …………………………………….. 17 b) Mean fixation times on the first syllable …………………………………...………. 18 c) Mean fixation times on the second syllable……………………...…………………. 19 d) Comparison of results on reaction times and fixation times ………..……………… 19 4.2.2. DISYLLABIC PSEUDOWORDS COMBINING HIGHFREQUENCY AND LOW-FREQUENCY SYLLABLES ……………………………….……….…….. 20 a) Mean fixation times on the first syllable....………………………….……….……. 20 b) Mean fixation times on the second syllable ……………...……………..…………. 21 c) Comparison of results on reaction times and fixation times …….……...……….… 22 4.3. COMPARISON OF RESULTS…………………………….………………………..… 22 4.3.1. COMPARISON OF RESULTS FOR THE ENGLISH AND SPANISH EXPERIMENTS IN “DYSLEXIC” INDIVIDUALS……………………………… 23 4.3.2. COMPARISON OF RESULTS FOR THE ENGLISH AND SPANISH EXPERIMENT BETWEEN NORMAL READERS AND DYSLEXIC INDIVIDUALS…………………..…………………………………………………. 24 5.DISCUSSION…………..……...……………………………………….………………… 25 6. CONCLUSION………………………..……………….………………………………… 27 7. BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES……………………………..…………………… 29 0 Eye-tracking and assessment of syllable frequency manipulation effect in individuals with a potential risk of dyslexia. ABSTRACT The primary objective of the present study is to investigate the possible effects of syllable frequency manipulation in Spanish “dyslexic” individuals. The research is based on an eye-tracked lexical decision task in Spanish (L1) and in English (L2). Pseudowords were categorized into four major groups: HF-HF, HF-LF, LF-HF and LF-LF. All the target pseudowords were disyllabic pseudowords following the pattern CVC.CVC in both languages and CV.CV only in Spanish. Two female individuals with symptoms of dyslexia, in addition to one female individual diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder participate in the study. The task assigned to them was to determine the existence of the pseudoword as soon as possible. The results show that both English and Spanish CVC.CVC present an inhibitory effect when the pseudowords are made up by highfrequency syllables. The case of CV.CV pseudowords is totally the opposite. When syllable frequency is manipulated, the findings suggest that low-frequency syllables are more prominent than highfrequency ones in both CVC.CVC and CV.CV Spanish disyllabic pseudowords. In the case of the English study, the results indicate that syllable frequency does not seem to be an important factor when participants must decide whether the target sequence of letters or phonetic symbols composed of high-frequency and low-frequency syllables is a word or a pseudoword. 1. INTRODUCTION Dyslexia is a neurodevelopmental learning difficulty which, according to the European Dyslexia Association, affects between 9 and 12% of the population. Some symptoms of this disability include a slow reading rate, difficulty identifying syllables, poor reading comprehension, and the reversal of letters and numbers sequences. In most cases, difficulties tend to emerge during the beginning stages of school. Despite the fact that recent investigations have revealed valuable information regarding this condition, the exact cause of dyslexia is still unknown. Nevertheless, dyslexic individuals appear to inherit the disorder from their relatives. Therefore, it may be inferred that the genetic factor plays a significant role in the development of this disorder. 1 The present research is an eye-tracked analysis of the possible effects of syllable5 frequency manipulation in students with signs of dyslexia. The investigation consists of a list of disyllabic pseudowords in two different languages: their mother tongue (Spanish) and their second language (English). Participants have to read them and decide whether or not the word provided exists. The pseudowords are grouped into four different categories. The first group consists of pseudowords made up of two high-frequency syllables while the third group comprises pseudowords composed of two low-frequency syllables. In the subsequent two groups, pseudowords have been created by the combination of high-frequency and lowfrequency syllables. The second section consists of pseudowords made up of a first highfrequency syllable and, then, a low-frequency one whereas the fourth and last part comprises pseudowords composed of a first low-frequency syllable and a second high-frequency one. The current study is based on an investigation originally conducted by García-Junco Jiménez. In his research titled Eye-tracked research on the effects of syllable frequency manipulation in English and Spanish, the four sets of pseudowords previously mentioned were given to a group of non-dyslexic individuals in order to explore the consequences of manipulating the syllable frequency in a pseudoword. Thus, the overall objective of this investigation is to compare the results obtained in the “dyslexic” group with those acquired by García-Junco Jiménez. Several issues will be discussed: will the individuals with symptoms of dyslexia pay greater attention to pseudowords containing low-frequency syllables as non-dyslexic individuals normally do? Will they need more time than a normal reader to read a pseudoword? Also, it would be interesting to determine which syllable (the first or the second one) receives more attention. This raises another question: will the frequency of the syllable, or perhaps the language utilized, influence this condition? Thereby, my departing hypothesis for this study is as follows: participants who might suffer from some type of dyslexia will stay longer studying pseudowords containing lowfrequency syllables than normal readers. Thus, in comparison to non-dyslexic individuals, “dyslexic” people are expected to require more time in order to determine the existence of a pseudoword. Furthermore, this study will aim to demonstrate that the placement of the syllable (whether it is first or second position) does not play a substantial role when deciding the existence of a word. There are a total of seven major sections in this research. The first part, which is this 2 one, provides a general overview of the study. This is followed by the theoretical background, which discusses the mental syllabary theory and some findings obtained from previous studies on syllable frequency in dyslexic individuals in both languages English and Spanish. A brief explanation of the technology used (eye-tracker) is also provided in this section. Specific details about participants, the materials employed, and the recording procedures are included in the third section. The fourth part is devoted to a detailed analysis of each participant’s results. This section will also contain a comparison of the results obtained by García-Junco Jimenez with those acquired by the “dyslexic” group. The fifth part constitutes the discussion, where we will be able to determine whether the hypothesis proposed has been proven to be right. This section will be followed by the conclusion which provides an account of the limitations of this study along with some suggestions for further investigation into this topic. The study’s references and appendices are placed at the end of this study. To conclude the introduction, I desire to explain why I have decided to carry out this investigation. My interest in this topic originates from the fact that dyslexia is a relatively unexplored subject. Even though several studies have been conducted in recent years, I consider this area is still largely unknown. Therefore, by employing advanced technologies, such as the eye–tracker, it is possible to carry out more extensive investigations whose results will help us acquire deeper knowledge about dyslexia and, as a result, be able to assist individuals who suffer from this condition. 2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 2.1. THE ORIGINS OF THE MENTAL SYLLABARY THEORY. The role of syllables in speech production has been the focus of multiple investigations in the past few years. The assumption of an independently stored of syllable units in the brain dates back to Crompton in the early 1980s. He proposes the existence of a “library of articulatory routines” (Schiller, 2008, p. 159). In other words, rather than generating syllables from scratch each time articulation is required, syllables are extracted from a pre-compiled program. An implication of this assumption is that the pre-compilation might allow a faster speech production. 3 These notions were further elaborated by Levelt and some other scholars such as Wheeldon. They attempted to detect the stored syllable units. Their departing hypothesis was that it appears to be “located between the levels of phonological and phonetic encoding and is thought to contain the (high-frequency) syllables of a given language as ready-made whole gestural scores.” (Cholin, 2008, p. 1). Levelt et al. investigate their theory by conducting an experiment comparing disyllabic words composed of high-frequency syllables with those formed by low-frequency ones. The results obtained in this study suggest that words made up of high-frequency syllables were named faster than words composed of low-frequency syllables. Based on these findings, they conclude that there must exist a mental syllabary from which syllables can be drawn when speech production is needed. In their research in 1994, they also discover that the “bulk, if not the whole of the syllable frequency effect, is due to the word-final syllable” (Levelt & Wheeldon, 1994, p. 260). In other words, they establish a direct correlation between the last syllable frequency and production time. It has been shown that speakers only start articulating once all the syllables involved in the speech production have been executed. Thus, the final syllable is the one which influences to a greater extent the time spent on production since it is the last to be ready. Other investigations have been carried out to enrich the notion of the mental syllabary. As a way of illustration, Wilshire and Nespolous conducted an experiment whose objective was to analyse the influence of syllable frequency on phonological errors produced by French-speaking aphasic patients. They conclude that a “plausible interpretation of the absence of syllable frequency effects is that this variable has no influence on the process of phonological encoding” (Schiller, 2008, p. 161). In other words, they discover that the inability of founding a syllable frequency effect shows that syllables are not retrieved as syllable frequency effects. 2.2. PREVIOUS STUDIES ON SYLLABLE FREQUENCY EFFECT IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE FOR DYSLEXIC INDIVIDUALS. There have been few studies on syllable frequency in English dyslexic individuals and, almost any including Spanish-speaking dyslexics learning English. An example of the latter is a research carried out by Suárez-Coalla et. al named Reading in English as a Foreign Language by Spanish Children with Dyslexia, it was discovered that “the CON children had 4 better performances than the DYS children, as they made fewer mistakes and were faster than the latter group. Moreover, the DYS children spent a similar amount of time on correct and incorrect stimuli, but the CON children were faster when reading real words.” (Suárez-Coalla et al., 2020, p. 9). In other words, the dyslexic group read slower than the non-dyslexic one and, performed worse overall. Similar results were drawn in a study by Seassau et al. named Binocular saccade coordination in reading and visual search: a developmental study in typical reader and dyslexic children. In this study, a comparison was established between a group of forty-three English children with dyslexia and forty-two non-dyslexic individuals. They observed “many fixations, longer duration, and shorter amplitude saccades were found in dyslexic children in comparison to typical readers” (Seassau et al., 2014, p. 9). Notwithstanding1, in a research carried out by Tiadi et al., it was shown that dyslexic individuals spent significantly less time on the tasks selected than the non-dyslexic group. They sought a plausible justification for the surprising finding. Finally, it was concluded that dyslexic children devote a minor amount of time “because of poor attentional capabilities”. (Tiadi et al., 2016, p.13). Even though they are two different disorders, dyslexia hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) can coexist. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), over half of the individuals who suffer from ADHD have also been diagnosed with dyslexia. Additionally, statistics suggest that between 25 and 40 % of dyslexic people have also been diagnosed with ADHD. Some of the commonalities between these two disorders are not being fluent readers, and having problems when organizing and expressing ideas both in oral and written formats. Therefore, it may be argued that this can explain certain results dyslexic people may exhibit. To conclude this section, it is worth noting that research on syllable frequency in language might yield inconclusive results. As Álvarez et al. claim, “English is a language with ambiguous and ill-defined syllable boundaries” which “tend to be modified by stress”. (Álvarez et al., 2020, p. 342). Therefore, it is more difficult detecting syllable frequency effects in English than in other languages, such as Spanish, where the syllable boundaries are well-defined. 2.3. PREVIOUS STUDIES ON SYLLABLE FREQUENCY EFFECT IN THE 1 French informants participated in Tiadi et al’s research. Nevertheless, the results obtained are crucial to understand certain behaviours of those who participate in the present study. 5 SPANISH LANGUAGE FOR DYSLEXIC INDIVIDUALS. In a study carried out by the scholars Luque, López-Zamora, J. Álvarez and Bordoy named Beyond decoding deficit: inhibitory effect of positional syllable frequency in dyslexic Spanish children, they hypothesize that dyslexic individuals seem to spend longer time when reading a word. Moreover, they expect that the temporal interval between the first and the second syllable will be longer in dyslexic children. They were also interested in evaluating whether the frequency of a syllable affects the reading. In order to test those hypotheses, a group of dyslexic students of second and fourth grade were asked to finish an incomplete sentence. Two of the four options were pseudowords. After the analysis, they found out that “dyslexic school readers showed a three times greater inhibitory effect than the normal school readers”. (Luque et al., 2013, p. 248). Regarding the frequency of the syllables, they concluded that “dyslexic participants showed a greater inhibitory effect in the low-frequency word condition than normal readers” (Luque et al., 2013, p. 246). In other words, dyslexic individuals devote greater time observing the pseudowords than non-dyslexic participants. Moreover, it can be deduced that they stay longer on low-frequency pseudowords than in those composed of high-frequency ones. In 2014, the University of Oviedo conducted an interesting study. One of the key hypotheses proposed was that non-dyslexic readers would require less time to react than the dyslexic group. In the task of reading pseudowords, the scholar Villanueva Tuñón discovered that the primary hypothesis was confirmed. However, an important aspect was discovered. For the dyslexic group there was a significant variation between the complex and simpler pseudowords composed by high-frequency syllables. This substantial difference was totally absent in those pseudowords made up by low-frequency syllables. This last observation makes me wonder whether there would be a significant difference between the CVC. CVC and CV.CV high-frequency pseudowords. As it can be appreciated, both studies agree on the fact that dyslexic individuals take longer time to recognize a syllable. Luque et al. try to offer a possible explanation by establishing a connection between the inhibitory effect and the decoding processes as they claim “that a longer inhibitory effect is a direct consequence of the slower decoding processes. Therefore, the inhibitory phenomenon would be beyond the decoding step, but the effect would be directly produced by the decoding speed deficit”. (Luque et al, 2013 p. 249). 6 evidence the participant has observed the first syllable of the pseudoword /ʃʌdlɪg/. On the other hand, participant B’s longest fixation on the first syllable in high-frequency pseudowords lasts 4330 ms. on the pseudoword /gɪnben/. In the case of participant C, the longest fixation lasts 1709 ms., which stands as the lowest value among the three participants. The results of the low-frequency pseudowords also varied noticeable. Participant A’s values range from 1066 ms. to 3117 ms., participant B’s from NA (as we have previously mentioned) to 2122 ms., and, lastly, participant C, from 393 ms. to 1501 ms., being the one with the lowest results. c. Mean fixation times on the second syllable. Participant A, B and C display similar results regarding the highest value. Participant C’s longest fixation lasts 1137 ms. on the second syllable of the pseudoword /ʃɪdvɑl/ while participant B’s longest fixation occurs on the final syllable of the pseudoword /fɪkkɑŋ/ with a value of 1019 ms.. Finally, participant A has the highest value among the three participant, being the longest fixation on the pseudoword /kælpɪd/ with a total of 1613 ms.. The range of the participants shortest fixations range between 400 and 500 ms.. Notwithstanding, the results obtained on the second syllable for low-frequency pseudowords are extremely diverse. The fixation time range of participant A goes from 946 to 2181 ms. while the shortest fixation made by participant C only lasts 416 ms. and the longest one 885 ms.. One more time, the case of participant B is rather peculiar. The participant has not observed the second syllable of the pseudoword /kækpɪʃ/ to decide whether the word is real or not. In the case of the longest fixation, it occurs on the second syllable of the pseudoword /gɪzbes/ with a value of 1255 ms.. d. Comparison of results on reaction times and fixation times. The aforementioned results imply that the election of disyllabic pseudowords composed of two low-frequency syllables is easier for individuals who may suffer from dyslexia. The total average reaction time for low-frequency pseudowords appears to be 47 ms. faster than the average reaction time for high-frequency pseudowords. On the other hand, the results obtained in the analysis of fixation times on both the first and the second syllable suggest that in both cases, the first syllable tends to be more prominent when deciding on the 13 existence of a word. The three participants have devoted longer time observing the first syllable when deciding whether the word is real or not. 4.1.2 DISYLLABIC PSEUDOWORDS COMBINING HIGH-FREQUENCY AND LOW-FREQUENCY SYLLABLES. The second section of the English research analysis investigates the possible effects of combining high-frequency and low-frequency syllables in a single pseudoword. Fixation times on both syllables would be rigorously examined in order to determine whether participants devote greater time to high-frequency syllables or low-frequency ones when deciding on the existence of the word. a. Mean fixation times on the first syllable. As the following figure illustrates, the results obtained of the mean fixation times on the first syllable in pseudowords composed by first a high-frequency syllable and, secondly, a low-frequency syllable are diverse: participant A’s fixations range between 866 to 3315 ms., participant B’s between 192 and 2777 ms. and, eventually, participants C’s fixations between 643 and 1202 ms.. Figure 3. Mean fixation times (ms.) on the first syllable for HF-LF English pseudowords among all participants. Similarly, the outcomes of disyllabic pseudowords made up by first a low-frequency and then by a high-frequency syllable are not uniform. The shortest fixation of participant A 14 lasts 895 ms. on the first syllable of the pseudoword /besval/ while participant C’s shortest fixation occurs in the last syllable of the pseudoword /ʃɪkvɑl/ with a value of 516 ms.. On the other hand, as it can be observed in table 42 (see appendix C), participant B has the lowest value among the three participants with a value of 197 ms.. Regarding the longest fixation, participant B and C shows similar results: participant B longest fixation lasts 1410 ms. while participant C’s 1473 ms.. These values are doubled by participant A. In this case, the longest fixation made by the individual reaches a total of 2166 ms.. b. Mean fixation times on the second syllable The highest values exhibit considerable homogeneity in pseudowords made up of a first high-frequency syllable and a second low frequency one. Participant A’s longest fixation lasts 1966 ms., participant B’s 1767 ms. and, finally, participant C’s 830 ms., being this latter the lowest value among them. On the contrary, the results of the shortest fixations differ greatly from each other. The shortest fixation made by participant A lasts 793 ms. while participant C’s shortest fixation only lasts 330 ms.. Once again, the case of participant B is rather interesting. For the pseudoword /fɪkkɑl/, the participant has not observed the second syllable in order to establish whether or not it was a real word. On the contrary, the findings obtained on the second syllable in pseudowords made up of first a low-frequency syllable and a second high-frequency syllable appear to be entirely inconsistent. Fixation times in participant A range between 965 and 2110 ms. while participant C’s fixation time goes from 150 to 923 ms.. In the case of participant B, the longest fixation lasts 1283 ms., as shown in Table 44 (see appendix C). For the pseudoword / kækpɪd/, there is no evidence the participant has observed the second part of the word when deciding its existence. c. Comparison of results on fixation times in pseudowords with combining syllabic frequencies The analysis carried out in this section suggests that for disyllabic pseudowords made up of a first high-frequency syllable and secondly a low-frequency one, all the participants devote greater time observing the first syllable in order to decide whether the word exists or not.Similar results can be found respecting pseudowords composed by a first 15 low-frequency syllable and a second high-frequency one. Participant A and C have spent more time observing the first syllable than the second when deciding the existence of the term. On the contrary, participant B has devoted more time gazing the second syllable. However, in this case, the difference between the average time of the first and second syllable is quite small, only 70 ms.. Therefore, these results suggest that the three participants tend to observe longer the first syllable, independently whether it is a high-frequency syllable or a low-frequency one when deciding on the existence of the word. 4.1.3. SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS FOR THE ENGLISH EXPERIMENT The analysis exposed above illustrates that individuals who may be suffering from some type of dyslexia need more time to process high-frequency syllables than lowfrequency ones. Additionally, the English experiment has shown the general tendency for “dyslexic” people to spend a greater amount of time observing the first syllable when deciding the existence of the word. In the case of pseudowords made up of two highfrequency syllables, the three participants tend to observe more careful the first syllable. Similar results are obtained for pseudowords consisting of two low-frequency syllables. Finally, when there is a combination of high-frequency and low-frequency syllables in a word, the analysis suggests that the fixation time is longer on the first syllable independently of whether that syllable is considered a high-frequency syllable or a low-frequency one. 4.2. RESULTS OF THE SPANISH EXPERIMENT The Spanish experiment is divided into two sections. The first part is devoted to CVC.CVC disyllabic pseudowords whereas the second one to CV.CV ones. These two sections would be examined together to identify any relevant similarity or distinction that may exist. 4.2.1. DISYLLABIC HIGH-FREQUENCY PSEUDOWORDS VERSUS DISYLLABIC LOW–FREQUENCY PSEUDOWORDS This first section examines CVC.CVC and CV.CV disyllabic pseudowords composed by two high-frequency syllables as well as pseudowords consisting of two low-frequency syllables. The reaction time of each participant is analyzed and a comparison between fixation times on both syllables is made. Following that, the results for each syllable structure 16 are compared. a. Differences in the participants’ reaction time. There appears to be homogeneity in the lowest values for CVC.CVC high-frequency pseudowords: all range between 600 and 1000 ms.. In the case of participant B, the lowest value is 580 ms. for gesbor, followed by participant A with a value of 720 ms. for the pseudoword mislar and, ending with participant C for cenlar with a value of 970 ms.. However, the results obtained for the highest values are extremely diverse: participant B’s highest value is 1990 ms. for the pseudoword mislar whereas participant C’s is 2440 ms. for the pseudoword tanjar. The same pseudoword (tanjar) is also participant A’s highest value, except that in this case, the result has been tripled, reaching a total of 6010 ms.. The outcomes for CV.CV pseudowords made up of two high-frequency syllables are more uniform. Participants A and B’s lowest value range between 650 and 670 ms. Nevertheless, their highest values differ significantly. While participant A needed 1700 ms. to process the pseudoword fibo, participant B spent 3180 ms. for the pseudoword nibe. The results of participant C are more alike to the ones of a normal reader, as shown in figure 76 (see appendix D). Participant C reaction time ranged between 960 to 2060 ms, having the greatest value of the pseudoword fibo, just as in the case of participant A. In the case of CVC.CVC pseudowords composed of two low-frequency syllables, the results of the reaction time are quite disparate: participant A has a range of 1160 to 4152 ms., participant B between 308 and 2910 ms. and, finally, participant C ranges between 910 to 1810 ms. 17 Figure 4. Mean reaction times (ms.) for LF-LF CVC.CVC Spanish pseudowords among all participants. As figures 18 (see appendix B) and 48 (see appendix C) shown, participants A and B both obtained similar results for the CV.CV pseudowords: their lowest value goes around 800 ms. and their highest one is almost 4000 ms.. These results differ from the values obtained by participant C. In this case, the range is between 1017 to 2280 ms. b.Mean fixation time on the first syllable. Participants A and B show similar results for CVC.CVC high-frequency pseudowords, as it can be observed in Tables 19 (see appendix B) and 49 (see appendix C). The shortest fixation participant A produces lasts 226 ms. whereas participant B’s shortest fixation lasts 215 ms.. The longest fixation lasts in both cases 1800 ms.. However, they are produced on different pseudowords: in the case of participant A is on the first part of the pseudoword pentor whereas in B’s instance is on munras. The results for participant C differ slightly since the range goes from 510 to 1500 ms.. For CV. CV high-frequency pseudowords, both informants A and B have not observed the first syllable of some pseudowords. As a way of illustration, neither participant has noticed the first syllable of the pseudoword rasi nor has participant A recognized the initial syllable of the pseudoword nisi. The longest value differs significantly: participant A’s longest fixation lasts 1090 ms. on the first syllable of the pseudoword fibo whereas participant B’s longest one lasts 670 ms. on the initial part of the pseudoword nile. In the case of participant C, the longest fixation is on the first syllable of the pseudoword fibo, just as participant A, with a score of 1215 ms. and the shortest one is produced on the first syllable of the pseudoword rede with a result of 250 ms.. The shortest fixation on the first syllable in CVC.CVC low-frequency pseudowords. is produced on the first syllable of the pseudoword cadpel in both, participant A and B with results which are relatively similar: participant A’s fixation lasts 340 ms. and participant B’s 206 ms.. Nevertheless, in terms of the longest fixation, participant A’s longest fixation lasts 2440 ms. on the pseudoword durcis while participant B’s longest one is made on the pseudoword minlas with a value of 1320 ms.. Focusing on participant C, the shortest fixation lasts 160 ms. on the first syllable of the pseudoword mulram, being the lowest record among the three participants involved. Regarding the longest fixation, participant C needed 1270 ms. to process the first syllable of the pseudoword durcis, just as the case of participant B. For the 18 CV. CV low-frequency pseudowords, the results vary considerably: participant A’s fixation time range between 380 and 1660 ms., participant B’s between NA and 2300 ms. and, finally, participant C’s between 250 and 850 ms.. As it can be noticed in Table 52 (see appendix C), participant B has not observed the first syllable of the pseudoword rudi. c. Mean fixation times on the second syllable. Participant A and C show similar results for the lowest value of Spanish high-frequency pseudowords with the syllabic structure CVC.CVC : participant A’s shortest fixation last 170 ms. while participant C’s shortest one lasts 160 ms.. However, their highest value is quite dissimilar. Whereas participant C’s longest fixation lasts 1130 ms., participant A’s lasts 2104 ms., equivalent to nearly the double value. In the case of participant B, the longest fixation lasts 1765 ms. and the shortest one 105 ms.. For CV.CV high-frequency pseudowords, participant A and C show the exact same value for the longest fixation, 1120 ms.. However, it is not done on the same pseudoword: in the case of participant C, this long fixation has occurred on the second syllable of the pseudoword rose whereas in A’s instance in rasi. Additionally, the shortest fixation values are remarkably close: participant C’s shortest fixation is on the second syllable of the pseudoword nisi with a value of 220 ms.. whereas informant A’s shortest one lasts 330 ms. on the final syllable of fibo. On the other hand, the range for informant B is between 165 and 2350 ms.. For CVC.CVC. low-frequency pseudowords, the longest fixation values are similar in both participants B and C. Participant B’s longest fixation lasts 1320 ms. while participant C’s shortest one lasts 1270 ms.. In the case of participant A, the value is doubled with regard to the results of both participants: the longest fixation lasts 2688 ms. on the second syllable of the pseudoword mulram. The values of the shortest fixation differ greatly: participant’s A lasts 275 ms. while participant’s C lasts 160 ms.. In the case of participant B, the shortest fixation has a value of 0 ms., that is to say, the participant has not noticed the second syllable of the pseudoword cadpel. In the case of CV.CV pseudowords, participants B and C show less than 500 ms. regarding the shortest fixation and a range between 1220 and 1380 for the longest fixation. Participant A differs from these results since the fixation time ranges between 226 and 3344 ms.. d. Comparison of results on reaction times and fixation times. 19 The information obtained on the reaction times corresponding to high-frequency disyllabic pseudowords and low-frequency disyllabic pseudowords suggest that, for CV.CVC pseudowords, participants need more time deciding on the existence of a word when it is composed of two high-frequency syllables with a difference of 1834 ms.. When it comes to CV.CV disyllabic pseudowords, the results are entirely different. The three participants devote considerable attention to observing the low-frequency syllables in order to determine the existence of the word. Contrastingly, the results obtained from the analysis on fixation time show that the second syllable appears to be more significant than the first one in CVC.CVC pseudowords. Low-frequency pseudowords exhibit the same behavior. However, the study of CV. CV pseudowords reveal the opposite idea: the first syllable is more prominent than the second. 4.2.2 DISYLLABIC PSEUDOWORDS COMBINING HIGH-FREQUENCY AND LOW-FREQUENCY SYLLABLES. The second section of the analysis for the Spanish experiment examines the possible consequences of combining high-frequency syllables with low–frequency ones in a word. Fixation times on both syllables will be analysed in order to discover what type of syllable participants devote a greatest amount of time when determining the existence of the word. a. Mean fixation time on the first syllable. For CVC.CVC disyllabic pseudowords combining first a high-frequency syllable and then a low-frequency one, participants A and C show similar values. The shortest fixation in both cases last less than 600 ms. and the longest one ranges between 1110 and 1180 ms.: participant A’s longest fixation occurs on the first syllable of the pseudoword mislas with a value of 1117 ms. while participant C’s longest one lasts 1186 ms. on the initial syllable of pentos. The results of participant B differ in a significant way from the ones of participants A and C. The range of fixation times is between 230 to 2786 ms.. In the case of CV.CV pseudowords, the results are completely different among the three participants. Participant A’s values range between 280 to 1380 ms., participant B’s range between NA to 430 ms. and, finally, participant C’s range between 400 to 950 ms.. As it can be observed in Table 58, (see appendix C) participant B has not observed the first syllable of the pseudoword niti. The results for the CVC.CVC disyllabic pseudowords combining first a low- 20 frequency syllable and then a high-frequency one are not so different among the three participants. Fixation time in participant A ranges between 390 to 2210 ms., participant B’s values range between 270 and 1780 ms., and, eventually, participant C goes from 450 to 1215 ms.. On the contrary, for the CV.CV pseudowords, the results are not so uniform: participant A’s value range between 280 to 1380 ms., participant B’s goes from 0 to 430 ms., and, eventually, participant C goes from 400 to 950 ms., having similar results with the CVC.CVC pseudowords. As it can be observed in table 60, participant B has not noticed the first syllable of the pseudowords fore and fuba in order to decide whether the word really exists or not. b. Mean fixation time on the second syllable. Participants A and B show similar values regarding the longest fixation time on pseudowords composed by a high-frequency syllable and a low-frequency one: participant A’s longest fixation lasts 1517 ms. on the second syllable of the pseudoword dulcis while participant B’s longest one occurs on the lasts syllable of the pseudoword gesbon with a value of 1418 ms.. However, the shortest fixation time differ from one participant to another: participant A’s shortest fixation lasts 663 ms. whereas participant B lasts 240 ms.. The results of participant C present a great difference. The range is between NA and 899 ms.. As it can be observed in table 91 (see appendix D), for the pseudoword pentos, the participant C decided the existence of the word by not noticing the second syllable. For the CV.CV pseudowords, participant B and C obtained similar results: fixation time ranges between 250 and 930 ms. while participant C’s values range between 210 and 1110 ms. Participant A’s values are significant different. The shortest fixation lasts 520 ms. and the longest one lasts 1450 ms.. In the case of CVC.CVC pseudowords made up first of a low-frequency syllable and then a high-frequency one, the results between the three participants are homogeneous: fixation time for participant A ranges between 380 to 1712 ms., for participant B between 205 and 1125 ms. and, eventually, for participant C the range goes from 190 to 780 ms.. For the CV.CV pseudowords, the shortest fixation values are close among the three participants: participant A shortest fixation lasts 338 ms. on the pseudoword gose participant B’s shortest fixation lasts 310 on the second syllable of the pseudoword fole and, finally, participant C’s shortest fixation occurs on the last syllable of the pseudoword buna with a value of 248 ms.. 21 The longest fixation’s values differ slightly among the three of them. Participant A has the highest value with a total of 1979 ms. whereas participant C only lasts 1042 ms., being the lowest value among the three. On the other hand, participant B is in the middle of these two results. The informant lasts 1300 ms. on the second syllable of the pseudoword buna. c. Comparison of results on fixation times in pseudowords with combining syllabic frequencies. The analysis of CVC.CVC pseudowords made up of a first high-frequency syllable and then a low-frequency one demonstrates that participants A and C have spent more time on the second syllable when deciding whether the existence of the word. However, in the case of participant B more time has been spent on the first syllable than on the second one in order to make that decision. For CV.CV pseudowords, participants B and C have spent more time on the second syllable whereas participant A is the only one in which the fixation time is longer on the first syllable, contrary to what the informant has done in the CVC.CVC pseudowords’ experiment. On the other hand, the results for the CVC.CVC disyllabic pseudowords made up of a first a low-frequency syllable and then a high-frequency one shows slightly different results among the three participants. For the CVC. CVC pseudowords, participants A and B have spent more time on the first syllable whereas participant C on the second syllable. There is a similarity in CV.CV pseudowords. In this case, fixation time is longer on the first syllable for both participants A and C whereas participant B spent a bit more time on the second one. Therefore, the results suggest that, even though there is slight discrepancies, the lowfrequency syllable seems to be more prominent for CVC.CVC and also CV.CV pseudowords. 4.2.3. SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS OF THE SPANISH EXPERIMENT The Spanish analysis suggests that for CVC.CVC pseudowords, pseudowords made up by two high-frequency syllables are processed slower than the low-frequency ones. For CV.CV pseudowords, on the contrary, when the pseudowords are composed of two highfrequency syllables these are processed faster than the low-frequency one. Besides that, regarding the fixation time in both cases for CVC.CVC pseudowords composed of two high-frequency and low-frequency syllables the second syllable appears to 22 relatively new, we occasionally encounter some problems such as calibration failures. In fact, part of the data had to be dismissed because of calibration issues. Eventually, one of the difficulties I encountered while conducting this research was finding individuals who might be suffering from some type of dyslexia in a short period of time. In fact, the aim of this study was analyzing the behavior of people diagnosed with this disorder. However, due to the difficulties to find them, we selected participants who exhibit clear symptoms of dyslexia but have not received a professional diagnosis yet. Furthermore, we thought it would be interesting to include in our study an individual who suffers from autism spectrum disorder. Finally, for further research, it would be interesting to test dyslexic individuals who have received a professional diagnosis and to establish a comparison with the “dyslexic” participants analyzed in the present study, so as to observe whether they present similar results. Moreover, a larger corpus can be used. For instance, I consider that the use of multisyllabic pseudowords will shed interesting results. Another possibility is the use of more complex syllable structures such as CCVC in the English experiment or CVC.CCV in the Spanish one. In summary, a larger corpus will yield more accurate findings. 7. BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES Álvarez, C. J., Carreiras, M., & De Vega, M. (2000). Syllable-frequency effect in visual word recognition: Evidence of sequential-type processing. Psicológica, 21(2), 341- 374. Carter, B. T. and Luke, S.G . (2020) Best Practices in Eye Tracking Research. Brigham Young University, United States of America. Cholin. J. (2008) The Mental Syllabary in Speech Production: An Integration of Different Approaches and Domains. Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA. Ekstrand, A., et al. (2021) Screening for Reading Difficulties: Comparing Eye Tracking Outcomes to Neuropsychological Assessment. Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Division of Eye and Vision, Marianne Bernadotte Centre, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. Franzen, L. et al.(2021) Individuals with Dyslexia Use a Different Visual Sampling Strategy to Read Text.” Scientific Reports. García-Junco Jiménez, A. L. (2021, 2022). Eye-Tracked Research on the Effects of Syllable Frequency Manipulation in English and Spanish. University of Seville. 29 Hu, T., Wang, X., & Xu, H. (2022). Eye-Tracking in Interpreting Studies: A Review of Four Decades of Empirical Studies. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.872247 Levelt, W., & Wheeldon, L. (1994). Do speakers have access to a mental syllabary? Cognition, 50, 239–269. Loftus, Y. (2022, February 17). Dyslexia and Autism: Is there a Connection? www.autismparentingmagazine.com. Luque, Juan L., et al. (2013) Beyond Decoding Deficit: Inhibitory Effect of Positional Syllable Frequency in Dyslexic Spanish Children. Annals of Dyslexia, vol. 63, no. 3, pp. 239 Schiller, Niels O.(2008) Syllables in Psycholinguistics Theory: Now You See Them, Now You Don't.Department of Cognitive Neurosciense, Faculty of Pshychology, Maastricht University. Seassau M., et al. Binocular Saccade Coordination in Reading and Visual Search: a Developmental Study in Typical Reader and Dyslexic Children. Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, n.d.. Stenneken P., et al. (2005) Frequency Effects with Visual Words and Syllables in a Dyslexic Reader. Department of Psychology, Freie Universitat Berlin, Germany. Suárez-Coalla P., et al. (2020) Reading in English as a Foreign Language by Spanish Children with Dyslexia. Department of Psychology, University of Oviedo, Oviedo, Spain. Pazzaglia et al. (2012) Using Eye-Tracking to Study Reading Patterns and Processes in Autism with Hyperlexia Profile. Human – Computer Systems Interaction: Backgrounds and Applications, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 159–175. Tiadi A, Seassau M, Gerard C-L, Bucci MP (2016) Differences between Dyslexic and Non-Dyslexic Children in the Performance of Phonological Visual-Auditory Recognition Tasks: An Eye-Tracking Study. PLoS ONE 11(7): e0159190. Doi:10.1371/ journal.pone.0159190 Tuñón, N. Villanueva. (2014) Influencia De La Frequencia Silábica En La Formación De Representaciones Ortográficas En Niños Con Dislexia Evolutiva. Universidad de Oviedo. 30 APPENDIX A RECORDING MATERIALS SPEECH MATERIALS 1. English pseudowords and instructions. INSTRUCTIONS FOR PARTICIPANTS: First of all, we would like to thank participants for taking part in this experiment. These are the following instructions: - A list of words taken from an English dictionary will be presented, where some of them are real English words (but not very common) and others not (pseudowords). - The participant will need to decide a quickly as possible whether they exist or not, basing the decision on their own criteria. a) If the word is not real, press the right arrow on the keyboard. → b) If the word is real, press the left arrow on the keyboard. ← - Remember to press the key as soon as possible for each of the words presented. A brief rest will take place between the English and the Spanish task. - Participants should try to avoid moving so that the eye-tracking system does not miss their eyes. We thank all the participants for volunteering and get ready for the experiment. Press ‘next’ once you are ready. We hope you enjoy the experience. CVC. CVC ENGLISH PSEUDOWORDS HF - HF HFLF LF - HF LFLF ginben ginbes gizben gizbes zisyes zisyen zinyes zinyen faknish faknid falnish falnid calpid calpish cakpid cakpish fickcang fickcal fidkang fidkal shidval shidvang shikval shikvang yudsig yudsif yuzzig yuzzif shuslif shuslig shudlif fudlig Benval benvang besval besvang calgin calgis cakgin cakgis Table 1. List of CVC. CVC pseudowords for the English study. 31 CVC. CVC ENGLISH PHONETICALLY TRANSCRIBED PSEUDOWORDS HF - HF HF-LF LF -HF LF-LF /gɪnben/ /gɪnbes/ /gɪzben/ /gɪzbes/ /zɪzjes/ /zɪzjen/ /zɪnjes/ /zɪnjen/ /fæknɪʃ/ /fæknɪd/ /fælnɪʃ/ /fælnɪd/ /kælpɪd/ /kælpɪʃ / /kækpɪd/ /kækpɪʃ/ /fɪkkɑŋ/ /fɪkkɑl/ /fɪdkɑŋ/ /fɪdkɑl/ /ʃɪdvɑl/ /ʃɪdvɑŋ/ /ʃɪkvɑl/ /ʃɪkvɑŋ/ /jʌdsɪg/ /jʌdsɪf/ /jʌssɪg/ /jʌssɪf/ /ʃʌslɪf/ /ʃʌslɪg/ /ʃʌdlɪf/ /ʃʌdlɪg/ /benvɑl/ /benvɑŋ/ /besval/ /besvaŋ/ /kælgɪn/ /kælgɪz/ /kækgɪn/ /kækgɪz/ Table 2. List of phonetically transcribed CVC. CVC pseudowords for the English study. 2. Spanish pseudowords and instructions INSTRUCTIONS FOR PARTICIPANTS: First of all, we would like to thank participants for taking part in this experiment. These are the following instructions: - A list of words taken from a Spanish dictionary will be presented, where some of them are real English words (but not very common) and others not (pseudowords). - The participant will need to decide a quickly as possible whether they exist or not, basing the decision on their own criteria. c) If the word is not real, press the right arrow on the keyboard. → d) If the word is real, press the left arrow on the keyboard. ← - Remember to press the key as soon as possible for each of the words presented. - Participants should try to avoid moving so that the eye-tracking system does not miss their eyes. We thank all the participants for volunteering and get ready for the experiment. Press ‘next’ once you are ready. We hope you enjoy the experience. 32 CVC. CVC SPANISH PSEUDOWORDS HF -HF HF -LF LFHF LFLF carpen carpel cadpen cadpel tanjar tanjas tasjar tasjas funcin funcis fuscin fuscis pentor pentos peltor peltos bormon bormol bonmon bonmol mislar mislas minlar minlas cenlar cenlas ceslar ceslas dulcin dulcis durcin durcis munras munram mulras mulram gesbor gesbon gerbor gerbon Table 3. List of CVC. CVC pseudowords for the Spanish study. CV. CV SPANISH PSEUDOWORDS HF -HF HF - LF LF - HF LFLF rore nabu nuno fosu nibe filu buna nudu nile niti numa goli rasi nomi runo fubi nisi fibi nusa rudi rose rapi rute rupe fibo rami gose ruli nole natu fole rumi rede rali fore fope nore ribi fuba nuti Table 4. List of CV. CV pseudowords for the Spanish study. 33 APPENDIX B TABLES AND FIGURES FOR THE ENGLISH AND SPANISH EXPERIMENT OF INFORMANT A 3.1. RESULTS FOR THE ENGLISH EXPERIMENT. 3.1.1. DISYLLABIC HIGH-FREQUENCY PSEUDOWORDS VERSUS DISYLLABIC LOW-FREQUENCY PSEUDOWORDS. a. Results in informant A’s reaction time. Figure 5- Mean reaction times (ms.) for HF -HF English pseudowords of informant A. /gɪnben/ 2545.1 /zɪzjes/ 2230,5 /fæknɪʃ/ 8057.7 /kælpɪd/ 3392,9 /fɪkkɑŋ/ 1770,3 /ʃɪdvɑl/ 2340,6 /jʌdsɪg/ 2158,6 /ʃʌslɪf/ 2440,5 /benvɑl/ 2317,7 /kælgɪn/ 5789,3 Table 5. Mean reaction time (ms.) for HFHF English pseudowords of informant A. 34 HIGH FREQUENCY + HIGH FREQUENCY (ENG) Figure 6- Mean reaction times (ms.) for LF -LF English pseudowords of informant A. /gɪzbes/ 5036,5 /zɪnjen/ 4989,1 /fælnɪd/ 4364,7 /kækpɪʃ/ 3200,9 /fɪdkɑl/ 3140,2 /ʃɪkvɑŋ/ 5569,5 /jʌssɪf/ 3540,6 /ʃʌdlɪg/ 2622,6 /besvɑŋ/ 3539,9 /kækgɪz/ 4679,6 Table 6. Mean reaction time (ms.) for LF-LF English pseudowords of informant A. 35 12345678910 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 LOW FREQUENCY +LOW FREQUENCY (ENG) b. Mean fixation times on the first syllable. Figure 7- Mean fixation time (ms.) on the first syllable for HF -HF English pseudowords of informant A. /gɪnben/ 1215,1 /zɪzjes/ 1455,5 /fæknɪʃ/ 5427,7 /kælpɪd/ 1335,3 /fɪkkɑŋ/ 718 /ʃɪdvɑl/ 1197,5 /jʌdsɪg/ 931,7 /ʃʌslɪf/ 979,3 /benvɑl/ 1182,7 /kælgɪn/ 3646 Table 7. Mean fixation time (ms.) on the first syllable for HF-HF English pseudowords of informant A. 36 HIGH FREQUENCY + HIGH FREQUENCY (ENG) Figure 8- Mean fixation time (ms.) on the first syllable for LF -LF English pseudowords of informant A. /gɪzbes/ 2076,5 /zɪnjen/ 2694,1 /fælnɪd/ 1441,2 /kækpɪʃ/ 1091,4 /fɪdkɑl/ 1066,9 /ʃɪkvɑŋ/ 3117,8 /jʌssɪf/ 1828,9 /ʃʌdlɪg/ 1381 /besvɑŋ/ 1521,7 /kækgɪz/ 2115,7 Table 8. Mean fixation time (ms.) on the first syllable for LF-LF English pseudowords of informant A. 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 LOW FREQUENCY +LOW FREQUENCY (ENG) c. Mean fixation times on the second syllable. Figure 9- Mean fixation time (ms.) on the second syllable for HF -HF English pseudowords of informant A. /gɪnben/ 965 /zɪzjes/ 706,7 /fæknɪʃ/ 1365 /kælpɪd/ 1613 /fɪkkɑŋ/ 860,6 /ʃɪdvɑl/ 641,7 /jʌdsɪg/ 769,5 /ʃʌslɪf/ 916,1 /benvɑl/ 770 /kælgɪn/ 1450 Table 9. Mean fixation time (ms.) on the second syllable for HF-HF English pseudowords of informant A. 38 HIGH FREQUENCY +HIGH FREQUENCY (ENG) Figure 16. Mean reaction time (ms.) for HF-HF CV.CV Spanish pseudowords of informant A. rore 1196,2 nibe 1239,4 nile 1651,4 rasi 1380 nisi 852,7 rose 675,6 fibo 1709,4 nole 1634,3 rede 1194,2 nore 1640,2 Table 16. Mean reaction time (ms.) for HF-HF CV. CV Spanish pseudowords of informant A. 45 12345678910 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 HIGH FREQUENCY + HIGH FREQUENCY (SP) Figure 17. Mean reaction time (ms.) for LF-LF CVC.CVC Spanish pseudowords of informant A. cadpen 2803,2 tasjar 4152,2 fuscin 1951,8 peltor 2410,7 bonmon 962,7 minlar 1161 ceslar 2481,6 durcin 1518,8 mulras 2343,8 gerbor 1543 Table 17. Mean reaction time (ms.) for LF-LF CVC. CVC. Spanish pseudowords of informant A. 46 LOW FREQUENCY +LOW FREQUENCY (SP) Figure 18. Mean reaction time (ms.) for LF-LF CV.CV Spanish pseudowords of informant A. fosu 4942,3 nudu 1231,8 goli 817 fubi 2019,6 rudi 1769,1 rupe 2458,8 ruli 1367,9 rumi 1799,5 fope 983,8 nuti 2249,8 Table 18. Mean reaction time (ms.) for LF-LF CV. CV Spanish pseudowords of informant A. 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 LOW FREQUENCY + LOW FREQUENCY (SP) b. Mean fixation time on the first syllable. Figure 19. Mean fixation time (ms.) on the first syllable for HF-HF CVC.CVC Spanish pseudowords of informant A. carpen 1152,2 tanjar 2961 funcin 1303,3 pentor 303,3 bormon 470,3 mislar 226,7 cenlar 1177,6 dulcin 708,8 munras 1804,7 gesbor 995,8 Table 19. Mean fixation time (ms.) on the first syllable for HF -HF CVC. CVC Spanish pseudowords of informant A. 48 12345678910 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 HIGH FREQUENCY +HIGH FREQUENCY (SP) Figure 20. Mean fixation time (ms.) on the first syllable for HF-HF CV.CV Spanish pseudowords of informant A. rore 299,2 nibe 555,3 nile 711,4 rasi NA nisi NA rose 258,3 fibo 1093,3 nole 730,9 rede 379,9 nore 551,7 Table 20. Mean fixation time (ms.) on the first syllable for HF -HF CV. CV Spanish pseudowords of informant A. 49 12345678910 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 HIGH FREQUENCY + HIGH FREQUENCY (SP) Figure 21. Mean fixation time (ms.) on the first syllable for LF-LF CVC.CVC Spanish pseudowords of informant A. cadpel 343,3 tasjas 1126,8 fuscis 1746,6 peltos 821,6 bonmol 830,7 minlas 686 ceslas 893,3 durcis 2436,6 mulram 1305 gerbon 1018 Table 21. Mean fixation time (ms.)on the first syllable for LF -LF CVC. CVC Spanish pseudowords of informant A. 50 12345678910 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 LOW FREQUENCY + LOW FREQUENCY (SP) Figure 22. Mean fixation time (ms.) on the first syllable for LF-LF CV.CV Spanish pseudowords of informant A. fosu 1660 nudu 387,5 goli 178,2 fubi 621,7 rudi 1055,7 rupe 929,4 ruli 447,7 rumi 895 fope 411,7 nuti 709,8 Table 22. Mean fixation time (ms.)on the first syllable for LF -LF CV. CV Spanish pseudowords of informant A. 51 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 LOW FREQUENCY +LOW FREQUENCY (SP) c. Mean fixation times on the second syllable. Figure 23. Mean fixation time (ms.) on the second syllable for HF-HF CVC.CVC Spanish pseudowords of informant A. carpen 1763,3 tanjar 2036,6 funcin 2104,5 pentor 171,7 bormon 947,5 mislar 402,3 cenlar 898 dulcin 1153 munras 1385 gesbor 676,6 Table 23. Mean fixation time (ms.)on the second syllable for HF -HF CVC. CVC Spanish pseudowords of informant A. 52 HIGH FREQUENCY + HIGH FREQUENCY (SP) Figure 24. Mean fixation time (ms.) on the second syllable for HF-HF CV.CV Spanish pseudowords of informant A. rore 556,7 nibe 665,7 nile 961,4 rasi 1120,2 nisi 826 rose 363 fibo 336,7 nole 455 rede 719,3 nore 789,6 Table 24. Mean fixation time (ms.)on the second syllable for HF -HF CV. CV Spanish pseudowords of informant A. 53 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 HIGH FREQUENCY + HIGH FREQUENCY (SP) Figure 25. Mean fixation time (ms.) on the second syllable for LF-LF CVC.CVC Spanish pseudowords of informant A. cadpel 668,3 tasjas 915 fuscis 1460 peltos 1186,4 bonmol 736,6 minlas 275 ceslas 1379,8 durcis 970,1 mulram 2688,5 gerbon 1026,9 Table 25. Mean fixation time (ms.)on the second syllable for LF -LF CVC. CVC Spanish pseudowords of informant A. 54 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 LOW FREQUENCY + LOW FREQUENCY (SP) Figure 32. Mean fixation times (ms.) on the second syllable for HF-LF CV. CV Spanish pseudowords of informant A. nabu 523,3 filu 1279,1 niti 1366 nomi 1451,7 fibi 812,7 rapi 576,2 rami 1203,7 natu 921,3 rali 1077 ribi 475,9 Table 32. Mean fixation times (ms.) on the second syllable for HF-LF CV. CV Spanish pseudowords of informant A. 61 12345678910 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 HIGH FREQUENCY + LOW FREQUENCY (SP) Figure 33. Mean fixation times (ms.) on the second syllable for LF -HF CVC. CVC Spanish pseudowords of informant A. cadpen 1403,1 tasjar 1712,2 fuscin 711,5 peltor 1704,1 bonmon 456,7 minlar 383,3 ceslar 1138,3 durcin 1120,1 mulras 1575 gerbor 678,3 Table 33. Mean fixation times (ms.) on the second syllable for LF-HF CVC. CVC Spanish pseudowords of informant A. 62 12345678910 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 LOW FREQUENCY + HIGH FREQUENCY (SP) Figure 34. Mean fixation times (ms.) on the second syllable for LF -HF CV. CV Spanish pseudowords of informant A. nuno 670 buna 1111,7 numa 1501,7 runo 491 nusa 1979,6 rute 595 gose 338,1 fole 903,3 fore 614,3 fuba 999,9 Table 34. Mean fixation times (ms.) on the second syllable for LF-HF CV. CV Spanish pseudowords of informant A. 63 12345678910 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 LOW FREQUENCY + HIGH FREQUENCY (SP) APPENDIX C TABLES AND FIGURES FOR THE ENGLISH AND SPANISH EXPERIMENT OF INFORMANT B. 5.1 RESULTS FOR THE ENGLISH EXPERIMENT. 5.1.1. DISYLLABIC HIGH-FREQUENCY PSEUDOWORDS VERSUS DISYLLABIC LOWFREQUENCY PSEUDOWORDS a. Results in informant B’s reaction time. Figure 35. Mean reaction times (ms.) for the HF -HF English pseudowords of informant B. /gɪnben/ 8092,1 /zɪzjes/ 565,4 /fæknɪʃ/ 1151,7 /kælpɪd/ 2620,2 /fɪkkɑŋ/ 1809 /ʃɪdvɑl/ 519,4 /jʌdsɪg/ 1184,7 /ʃʌslɪf/ 1638,6 /benvɑl/ 570,9 /kælgɪn/ 1656,6 Table 35. Mean reaction times (ms.) for HF-HF English pseudowords of informant B. 64 12345678910 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 HIGH FREQUENCY + HIGH FREQUENCY (EN) Figure 36. Mean reaction times (ms.) for the LF -LF English pseudowords of informant B. /gɪzbes/ 1041 /zɪnjen/ 2456,4 /fælnɪd/ 869,1 /kækpɪʃ/ 670,2 /fɪdkɑl/ 4647,2 /ʃɪkvɑŋ/ 1128,9 /jʌssɪf/ 1338 /ʃʌdlɪg/ 1116,7 /besvɑŋ/ 910,3 /kækgɪz/ 487,7 Table 36. Mean reaction times (ms.) for LF-LF English pseudowords of informant B. 65 12345678910 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 LOW FREQUENCY + LOW FREQUENCY (EN) b. Mean fixation times on the first syllable. Figure 37. Mean fixation times (ms.) on the first syllable for the HF -HF English pseudowords of informant B. /gɪnben/ 4326,4 /zɪzjes/ NA /fæknɪʃ/ 373,1 /kælpɪd/ 1341,9 /fɪkkɑŋ/ 560 /ʃɪdvɑl/ 165,7 /jʌdsɪg/ 463,7 /ʃʌslɪf/ 599,8 /benvɑl/ 278,3 /kælgɪn/ 1146,7 Table 37. Mean fixation times (ms.)on the first syllable for HFHF English pseudowords of informant B. 66 12345678910 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 HIGH FREQUENCY +HIGH FREQUENCY (EN) Figure 38. Mean fixation times (ms.) on the first syllable for the LF -LF English pseudowords of informant B. /gɪzbes/ 382,7 /zɪnjen/ 1443,9 /fælnɪd/ 649,9 /kækpɪʃ/ 580,2 /fɪdkɑl/ 2122,3 /ʃɪkvɑŋ/ 418,3 /jʌssɪf/ 529,5 /ʃʌdlɪg/ NA /besvɑŋ/ 331,7 /kækgɪz/ 373,6 Table 38. Mean fixation times (ms.)on the first syllable for LFLF English pseudowords of informant B. 67 12345678910 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 LOW FREQUENCY + LOW FREQUENCY (EN) c. Mean fixation times on the second syllable. Figure 39. Mean fixation times (ms.) on the second syllable for the HF -HF English pseudowords of informant B. /gɪnben/ 2260 /zɪzjes/ 266,7 /fæknɪʃ/ 730,2 /kælpɪd/ 785 /fɪkkɑŋ/ 1019 /ʃɪdvɑl/ 195,4 /jʌdsɪg/ 500 /ʃʌslɪf/ 888,9 /benvɑl/ 188,5 /kælgɪn/ 643,3 Table 39. Mean fixation times (ms.)on the second syllable for HFHF English pseudowords of informant B. 68 HIGH FREQUENCY + HIGH FREQUENCY (EN) Figure 40. Mean fixation times (ms.) on the second syllable for the LF -LF English pseudowords of informant B. /gɪzbes/ 456,7 /zɪnjen/ 1255,8 /fælnɪd/ 97,5 /kækpɪʃ/ NA /fɪdkɑl/ 1486,7 /ʃɪkvɑŋ/ 463,9 /jʌssɪf/ 663,6 /ʃʌdlɪg/ 916,7 /besvɑŋ/ 370,3 /kækgɪz/ NA Table 40. Mean fixation times (ms.)on the second syllable for LFLF English pseudowords of informant B. 69 12345678910 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 LOW FREQUENCY + LOW FREQUENCY (EN) 5.1.2. DISYLLABIC PSEUDOWORDS COMBINING HIGHFREQUENCY AND LOW-FREQUENCY SYLLABLES. a. Mean fixation times on the first syllable. Figure 41. Mean fixation times (ms.) on the first syllable for HF-LF English pseudowords of informant B. /gɪnbes/ 704,3 /zɪzjen/ 2034,2 /fæknɪd/ 2777,6 /kælpɪʃ/ 273,5 /fɪkkɑl/ 192,2 /ʃɪdvɑŋ/ 391,7 /jʌdsɪf/ 561,7 /ʃʌslɪg/ 398,9 /benvɑŋ/ 560 /kælgɪz/ 240 Table 41. Mean fixation times (ms.) on the first syllable for HF-LF English pseudowords of informant B. 70 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 HIGH FREQUENCY + LOW FREQUENCY (EN) Figure 48.Mean reaction times (ms.) for the LF -LF CV. CV Spanish pseudowords of informant B. fosu 1023,8 nudu 1545,2 goli 1381,2 fubi 4468,9 rudi 821,1 rupe 769,9 ruli 727,5 fope 1159,7 nuti 818,9 Table 48. Mean reaction times (ms.) for LF-LF CV. CV Spanish pseudowords of informant B. 77 123456789 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 LOW FREQUENCY + LOW FREQUENCY (SP) b. Mean fixation times on the first syllable. Figure 49.Mean fixation times (ms.) on the first syllable for the HF -HF CVC. CVC Spanish pseudowords of informant B. carpen 241,7 tanjar 421,5 funcin 459,6 pentor 1867,3 bormon 276,7 mislar 928,5 cenlar 193,3 dulcin 215 gesbor 336,7 Table 49. Mean fixation times (ms.) on the first syllable for the HF -HF CVC. CVC Spanish pseudowords of informant B. 78 HIGH FREQUENCY +HIGH FREQUENCY (SP) 123456789 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 Figure 50.Mean fixation times (ms.) on the first syllable for the HF -HF CV. CV Spanish pseudowords of informant B. rore 213,3 nibe 170 nile 678,3 rasi NA nisi 226,6 rose NA fibo 238,3 nole 498,3 rede 183,3 nore 488,3 Table 50. Mean fixation times (ms.) on the first syllable for the HF -HF CV. CV Spanish pseudowords of informant B. 79 12345678910 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 HIGH FREQUENCY + HIGH FREQUENCY (SP) Figure 51.Mean fixation times (ms.) on the first syllable for the LF -LF CVC. CVCSpanish pseudowords of informant B. cadpel 206,4 tasjas 355 fuscis 268,4 peltos 741,1 bonmol 773,1 minlas 1319,8 ceslas 1419 durcis 553 mulram 136,7 gerbon 1085,2 Table 51.Mean fixation times (ms.) on the first syllable for the LF -LF CVC. CVC Spanish pseudowords of informant B. 80 12345678910 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 LOW FREQUENCY + LOW FREQUENCY (SP) Figure 52.Mean fixation times (ms.) on the first syllable for the LF -LF CV. CV Spanish pseudowords of informant B. fosu 201,7 nudu 221,7 goli 340 fubi 2303,4 rudi NA rupe 507,5 ruli 144,1 fope 293,3 nuti 145,5 Table 52. Mean fixation times (ms.) on the first syllable for the LF -LF CV. CV Spanish pseudowords of informant B. 81 123456789 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 LOW FREQUENCY + LOW FREQUENCY (SP) c. Mean fixation times on the second syllable. Figure 53.Mean fixation times (ms.) on the second syllable for the HF -HF CVC. CVC Spanish pseudowords of informant B. carpen 363,3 tanjar 335,2 funcin 423,4 pentor 1765 bormon 301,3 mislar 681,7 cenlar 105 dulcin 839,5 gesbor 208,1 Table 53. Mean fixation times (ms.) on the second syllable for the HF -HF CVC. CVC Spanish pseudowords of informant B. 82 123456789 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 HIGH FREQUENCY + HIGH FREQUENCY (SP) Figure 54. Mean fixation times (ms.) on the second syllable for the HF -HF CV. CV Spanish pseudowords of informant B. rore 720,1 nibe 2356,2 nile 722,4 rasi 816,5 nisi 484,2 rose 709,6 fibo 988 nole 165,8 rede 638,9 nore 375,3 Table 54. Mean fixation times (ms.) on the second syllable for the HF -HF CV. CV Spanish pseudowords of informant B. 83 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 HIGH FREQUENCY + HIGH FREQUENCY (SP) Figure 55. Mean fixation times (ms.) on the second syllable for the LF -LF CVC. CVC Spanish pseudowords in informant B. cadpel NA tasjas 319 fuscis 321,6 peltos 686,7 bonmol 530 minlas 283,3 ceslas 1115,3 durcis 418,3 mulram 886 gerbon 643,3 Table 55. Mean fixation times (ms.) on the second syllable for the LF -LF CV.C CVC Spanish pseudowords of informant B. 84 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 LOW FREQUENCY + LOW FREQUENCY (SP) Figure 56. Mean fixation times (ms.) on the second syllable for the LF -LF CV. CV Spanish pseudowords of informant B. fosu 750,5 nudu 971,2 goli 885,7 fubi 1378,9 rudi 689,7 rupe 460,9 ruli 563,4 fope 746,4 nuti 618,4 Table 56. Mean fixation times (ms.) on the second syllable for the LF -LF CV. CV Spanish pseudowords of informant B. 85 123456789 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 LOW FREQUENCY + LOW FREQUENCY (SP) 6.2.2. DISYLLABIC PSEUDOWORDS COMBINING HIGH-FREQUENCY AND LOW-FREQUENCY SYLLABLES. a. Mean fixation times on the first syllable Figure 57. Mean fixation times (ms.) on the first syllable for the HF -LF CVC. CVC Spanish pseudowords of informant B. carpel 311,7 tanjas 254 funcis 326,7 pentos 880 bormol 167,9 mislas 586,7 cenlas 1522 dulcis 231,7 munram 2676,8 gesbon 2786,6 Table 57. Mean fixation times (ms.) on the first syllable for the HF -LF CVC. CVC Spanish pseudowords of informant B. 86 12345678910 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 HIGH FREQUENCY +LOW FREQUENCY (SP) Figure 64.Mean fixation times (ms.) on the second syllable for the LF-HF CV. CV Spanish pseudowords of informant B. nuno 315,6 buna 1301,9 numa 265,6 runo 600 nusa 791,8 rute 843,3 gose 466,9 fole 311,2 fore 1010,4 fuba 856 Table 64. Mean fixation times (ms.) on the second syllable for the LF-HF CV. CV Spanish pseudowords of informant B. 93 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 LOW FREQUENCY + HIGH FREQUENCY (SP) APPENDIX D TABLES AND FIGURES FOR THE ENGLISH AND SPANISH EXPERIMENT OF INFORMANT C 7.1. RESULTS FOR THE ENGLISH EXPERIMENT. 7.1.1. DISYLLABIC HIGH–FREQUENCY PSEUDOWORDS VERSUS DISYLLABIC LOW-FREQUENCY PSEUDOWORDS. a. Results in informant C’s reaction time. Figure 65.Mean reaction times (ms.) for the HF-HF English pseudowords of informant C. /gɪnben/ 1597,8 /zɪzjes/ 1249,6 /fæknɪʃ/ 1954,1 /kælpɪd/ 1653,2 /fɪkkɑŋ/ 1420,8 /ʃɪdvɑl/ 1625,4 /jʌdsɪg/ 2697,1 /ʃʌslɪf/ 1740,5 /benvɑl/ 2367,9 /kælgɪn/ 3026,5 Table 65. Mean reaction times (ms.) for the HF-HF English pseudowords of informant C. 94 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 HIGH FREQUENCY + HIGH FREQUENCY (EN) Figure 66.Mean reaction times (ms.) for the LF-LF English pseudowords of informant C. /gɪzbes/ 1699,1 /zɪnjen/ 1332,9 /fælnɪd/ 1676,3 /kækpɪʃ/ 1813,2 /fɪdkɑl/ 1390,7 /ʃɪkvɑŋ/ 1498,7 /jʌssɪf/ 1750,4 /ʃʌdlɪg/ 1823,2 /besvɑŋ/ 1662,9 /kækgɪz/ 1990,6 Table 66. Mean reaction times (ms.) for the LF-LF English pseudowords of informant C. 95 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 LOW FREQUENCY + LOW FREQUENCY (EN) b. Mean fixation times on the first syllable. Figure 67.Mean fixation times (ms.)on the first syllable for the HF-HF English pseudowords of informant C. /gɪnben/ 723,2 /zɪzjes/ 560,3 /fæknɪʃ/ 1210,7 /kælpɪd/ 867,3 /fɪkkɑŋ/ 556,2 /ʃɪdvɑl/ 410 /jʌdsɪg/ 1709,9 /ʃʌslɪf/ 628,9 /benvɑl/ 1234,6 /kælgɪn/ 1310,4 Table 67. Mean fixation times (ms.)on the first syllable for the HF-HF English pseudowords of informant C. 96 12345678910 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 HIGH FREQUENCY + HIGH FREQUENCY (EN) Figure 68.Mean fixation times (ms.)on the first syllable for the LF-LF English pseudowords of informant C. /gɪzbes/ 780,8 /zɪnjen/ 821,4 /fælnɪd/ 914,7 /kækpɪʃ/ 749,6 /fɪdkɑl/ 393,3 /ʃɪkvɑŋ/ 514,9 /jʌssɪf/ 713,3 /ʃʌdlɪg/ 1501,5 /besvaŋ/ 922,7 /kækgɪz/ 1411,3 Table 68. Mean fixation times (ms.)on the first syllable for the LF-LF English pseudowords of informant C. 97 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 LOW FREQUENCY + LOW FREQUENCY (EN) c. Mean fixation times on the second syllable. Figure 69.Mean fixation times (ms.)on the second syllable for the HF-HF English pseudowords of informant C. /gɪnben/ 584,6 /zɪzjes/ 554 /fæknɪʃ/ 729,8 /kælpɪd/ 665 /fɪkkɑŋ/ 737,9 /ʃɪdvɑl/ 1137,1 /jʌdsɪg/ 772,2 /ʃʌslɪf/ 451,7 /benvɑl/ 793,3 /kælgɪn/ 1414,3 Table 69.Mean fixation times (ms.)on the second syllable for the HF-HF English pseudowords of informant C. 98 12345678910 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 HIGH FREQUENCY + HIGH FREQUENCY (SP) Figure 70. Mean fixation times (ms.)on the second syllable for the LF-LF English pseudowords of informant C. /gɪzbes/ 743,3 /zɪnjen/ 416,5 /fælnɪd/ 625 /kækpɪʃ/ 808,6 /fɪdkɑl/ 885,7 /ʃɪkvɑŋ/ 862,1 /jʌssɪf/ 838,8 /ʃʌdlɪg/ 408,7 /besvɑŋ/ 605,3 /kækgɪz/ 421 Table 70. Mean fixation times (ms.)on the second syllable for the LF-LF English pseudowords of informant C. 99 12345678910 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 LOW FREQUENCY + LOW FREQUENCY (EN) 7.1.2 DISYLLABIC PSEUDOWORDS COMBINING HIGHFREQUENCY AND LOW-FREQUENCY SYLLABLES. a. Mean fixation times on the first syllable. Figure 71. Mean fixation times (ms.) on the first syllable for the HF-LF English pseudowords of informant C. /gɪnbes/ 807,1 /zɪzjen/ 699,3 /fæknɪd/ 1076,6 /kælpɪʃ/ 1061 /fɪkkɑl/ 857,6 /ʃɪdvɑŋ/ 568,3 /jʌdsɪf/ 643,6 /ʃʌslɪg/ 854 /benvɑŋ/ 1002,5 /kælgɪz/ 1201,6 Table 71. Mean fixation times (ms.)on the first syllable for the HF-LF English pseudowords of informant C. 100 12345678910 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 HIGH FREQUENCY + LOW FREQUENCY (EN) Figure 72. Mean fixation times (ms.) on the first syllable for the LF-HF English pseudowords of informant C. /gɪzben/ 1308,9 /zɪnjes/ 864,3 /fælnɪʃ/ 1655 /kækpɪd/ 1267,2 /fɪdkɑŋ/ 950,4 /ʃɪkvɑl/ 516,7 /jʌssɪg/ 847,9 /ʃʌdlɪf/ 1315,5 /besvɑl/ 1173,2 /kækgɪn/ 1473,3 Table 72. Mean fixation times (ms.)on the first syllable for the LF-HF English pseudowords of informant C. 101 LOW FREQUENCY + HIGH FREQUENCY (EN) c. Mean fixation times on the second syllable. Figure 73. Mean fixation times (ms.) on the second syllable for the HF-LF English pseudowords of informant C. /gɪnbes/ 448,1 /zɪzjen/ 463,8 /fæknɪd/ 420 /kælpɪʃ/ 830 /fɪkkɑl/ 346,4 /ʃɪdvɑŋ/ 552,2 /jʌdsɪf/ 725,8 /ʃʌslɪg/ 399,9 /benvɑŋ/ 333,3 /kælgɪz/ 600,7 Table 73. Mean fixation times (ms.) on the second syllable for the HF-LF English pseudowords of informant C. 102 12345678910 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 HIGH FREQUENCY + LOW FREQUENCY (EN) Figure 80. Mean fixation times (ms.) on the first syllable for the HF-HF CV.CV Spanish pseudowords of informant C. rore 344,5 nibe 543,3 nile 223,3 rasi 629,4 nisi 836,6 rose 266,7 fibo 1215,9 nole 744,8 rede 250 nore 524,6 Table 80. Mean fixation times (ms.) on the first syllable for the HF-HF CV.CV Spanish pseudowords of informant C. 109 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 HIGH FREQUENCY + HIGH FREQUENCY (SP) Figure 81. Mean fixation times (ms.) on the first syllable for the LF-LF CVC.CVC Spanish pseudowords of informant C. cadpel 810,8 tasjas 1058,6 fuscis 664,9 peltos 520,2 bonmol 629,2 minlas 679,1 ceslas 922,3 durcis 1264,6 mulram 161,7 gerbon 732,5 Table 81. Mean fixation times (ms.) on the first syllable for the LF-LF CVC.CVC Spanish pseudowords of informant C. 110 12345678910 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 LOW FREQUENCY + LOW FREQUENCY (SP) Figure 82. Mean fixation times (ms.) on the first syllable for the LF-LF CV.CV Spanish pseudowords of informant C. fosu 251,7 nudu 756,2 goli 849,7 fubi 602,4 rudi 503,3 rupe 295 ruli 399,3 rumi 345,4 fope 436,7 nuti 824,1 Table 82. Mean fixation times (ms.) on the first syllable for the LF-LF CV.CV Spanish pseudowords of informant C. 111 12345678910 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 LOW FREQUENCY + LOW FREQUENCY (SP) c. Mean fixation times on the second syllable. Figure 83. Mean fixation times (ms.) on the second syllable for the HF-HF CVC.CVC Spanish pseudowords of informant C. carpen 742,1 tanjar 931,7 funcin 656,1 pentor 421,7 bormon 789,2 mislar 476,9 cenlar 185 dulcin 1134,3 munras 160 gesbor 678 Table 83. Mean fixation times (ms.) on the second syllable for the HF-HF CVC.CVC Spanish pseudowords of informant C. 112 12345678910 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 HIGH FREQUENCY + HIGH FREQUENCY (SP) Figure 84. Mean fixation times (ms.) on the second syllable for the HF-HF CV.CV Spanish pseudowords of informant C. rore 584 nibe 994,6 nile 744,8 rasi 484,2 nisi 223,3 rose 1119,2 fibo 463,3 nole 228,3 rede 828,4 nore 235 Table 84. Mean fixation times (ms.) on the second syllable for the HF-HF CV.CV Spanish pseudowords of informant C. 113 12345678910 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 HIGH FREQUENCY + HIGH FREQUENCY (SP) Figure 85. Mean fixation times (ms.) on the second syllable for the LF-LF CVC.CVC Spanish pseudowords of informant C. cadpel 378,3 tasjas 458,3 fuscis 568,5 peltos 410,4 bonmol 484,6 minlas 412,5 ceslas 160 durcis 545,5 mulram 733,8 gerbon 410,7 Table 85. Mean fixation times (ms.) on the second syllable for the LF-LF CVC.CVC Spanish pseudowords of informant C. 114 12345678910 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 LOW FREQUENCY + LOW FREQUENCY (SP) Figure 86. Mean fixation times (ms.) on the second syllable for the LF-LF CV.CV Spanish pseudowords of informant C. fosu 982,6 nudu 470 goli 431,7 fubi 405,5 rudi 540,7 rupe 555,8 ruli 674 rumi 463,3 fope 1218,1 nuti 446,7 Table 86. Mean fixation times (ms.) on the second syllable for the LF-LF CV.CV Spanish pseudowords of informant C. 115 12345678910 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 LOW FREQUENCY +LOW FREQUENCY (SP) 8.1.2. DISYLLABIC PSEUDOWORDS COMBINING HIGH-FREQUENCY AND LOWFREQUENCY. a. Mean fixation times on the first syllable. Figure 87. Mean fixation times (ms.) on the first syllable for the HF-LF CVC.CVC Spanish pseudowords of informant C. carpel 436,5 tanjas 554,1 funcis 793,9 pentos 1186,6 bormol 829,8 mislas 1090 cenlas 793,9 dulcis 711,9 munram 565,5 gesbon 610 Table 87. Mean fixation times (ms.) on the first syllable for the HF-LF CVC.CVC Spanish pseudowords of informant C. 116 12345678910 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 HIGH FREQUENCY + LOW FREQUENCY (SP) Figure 88. Mean fixation times (ms.) on the first syllable for the HF-LF CV.CV Spanish pseudowords of informant C. nabu 703,2 filu 649,9 niti 476,1 nomi 497,3 fibi 406,2 rapi 647 rami 585,2 natu 401,5 rali 950,6 ribi 559,3 Table 88. Mean fixation times (ms.) on the first syllable for the HF-LF CV.CV Spanish pseudowords of informant C. 117 12345678910 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 HIGH FREQUENCY + LOW FREQUENCY (SP) Figure 89. Mean fixation times (ms.) on the first syllable for the LF-HF CVC.CVC Spanish pseudowords of informant C. cadpen 451,6 tasjar 616 fuscin 680,2 peltor 833,1 bonmon 590,9 minlar 571,8 ceslar 906,5 durcin 657,5 mulras 705,6 gerbor 1215 Table 89. Mean fixation times (ms.) on the first syllable for the LF-HF CVC.CVC Spanish pseudowords of informant C. 118 12345678910 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 LOW FREQUENCY + HIGH FREQUENCY (SP) __________________________________________________________________ 3. 5. En caso de que una de sus L2 sea el inglés, ¿cuál de los siguientes niveles considera que se asemeja más al suyo? (Marcar con una X). ___ Bajo ___ Intermedio ___ Avanzado 3. 6. ¿Dispone de certificación oficial de su nivel? (Cambridge, Trinity, Universidad…). SI / NO. 4. INFORMACIÓN RELACIONADA CON EL HISTORIAL ACADÉMICO DEL INFORMANTE 4.1. Del 1 (menos probable) al 5 (más probable), ¿cómo calificaría la capacidad para realizar las siguientes actividades? ____ Soy capaz de identificar los símbolos de una transcripción fonética en inglés. ____ Relaciono los sonidos del inglés y fonemas del inglés con su respectiva escritura utilizando el alfabeto latino. ____ Soy capaz de leer relacionar los fonemas del inglés con su correspondiente pronunciación. ____ Soy capaz de dividir en sílabas una palabra en inglés. ____ Soy capaz de dividir en sílabas una palabra en español. ____ Tengo problemas para expresar mis ideas de manera oral. ____ Tengo problemas para expresar mis ideas de manera escrita. 5. INFORMACIÓN RELACIONADA CON LAS PREFERENCIAS DEL USUARIO AL MOMENTO DE LEER. 5.1. ¿Sobre qué tipo de fondo le resulta más sencillo leer? (Marcar con una X) ____ Sobre un fondo de color blanco. ____ Sobre un fondo de colores claros. ____ Sobre un fondo de colores oscuros. ____ Otro (especifique cuál):_______________________________________ 5.2. ¿Tiene alguna preferencia en cuanto al tipo de fuente o letra para leer? SI / NO 5.3 De haber marcado sí, especifique cuál(es): ______________________________ 125 5.4 ¿Por qué motivo prefiere esa(s) fuente(s)? _______________________________ 5.5 Del 1 (poco probable) al 5 (más probable), evalúe las siguientes afirmaciones según se ajusten a usted. ____ Me resulta más sencilla la lectura con letras y números grandes. ____ Me resulta más sencilla la lectura si el interlineado es más grande. ____ Tengo problemas para leer cuando las letras y palabras están muy juntas entre sí. ____ Confundo el orden de las letras de una palabra al leer. ____ Confundo el orden de los números cuando leo alguna cifra. ____ Reviso varias veces una misma palabra cuando se trata de una palabra larga, hasta entenderla por completo. OTRAS OBSERVACIONES: 126