Table 2 Comparison with previously published data from hearing readers.

From: Deaf readers benefit from lexical feedback during orthographic processing

 

df

N/P150

N250

N400

F

p

F

p

F

p

AP

(1,34)

<1

 

2.95

0.095

8.05

0.008

Hem

(1,34)

17.08

0.000

10.61

0.003

9.94

0.003

Lexical

(1,34)

1.4

0.244

8.69

0.006

6.69

0.014

AP * Hem

(1,34)

26.2

0.000

8.265

0.007

9.33

0.004

AP * Lexical

(1,34)

11.81

0.002

13.62

0.001

19.45

0.000

Hem * Lexical

(1,34)

15.59

0.000

15.24

0.000

13.91

0.001

AP * Hem * Lexical

(1,34)

20.77

0.000

9.73

0.004

11.89

0.002

Group

(1,34)

<1

 

4.28

0.046

1.68

0.203

AP * Group

(1,34)

1.11

0.3

4.45

0.042

<1

 

Hem * Group

(1,34)

1.27

0.267

<1

 

1.79

0.189

Lexical * Group

(1,34)

<1

 

1.53

0.225

1.76

0.194

AP * Hem * Group

(1,34)

<1

 

<1

 

<1

 

AP * Lexical * Group

(1,34)

<1

 

1.33

0.257

<1

 

Hem * Lexical * Group

(1,34)

<1

 

<1

 

<1

 

AP * Hem * Lexical * Group

(1,34)

<1

 

<1

 

<1

 
  1. Results of the ANOVAs on the size of the effect of case including the within-subjects factors hemisphere, A-P distribution and Lexicality (words vs. pseudowords) and the between-subjects factor Group (deaf vs. hearing readers) for each of the identified.