{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.041536050156739814, 'fraction_numerical': 0.022727272727272728, 'mean_word_length': 5.51530612244898, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Imagery and Meaningfulness Ratings of Sentences: Reliability and Relationship to Learning

Exp. 1 assessed the test-retest reliability with which individuals and groups can rate simple sentences for image-evoking power and meaningfulness. For 10 different Ss rating 100 sentences on each dimension, the mean reliability coefficients were .69 and .67 for imagery and meaningfulness respectively. Within-group test-retest reliability of mean ratings was excellent (.90, imagery; .92, meaningfulness). Rating of both dimensions was also performed by a third group of 19 Ss, and inter-group agreement (estimated through correlation of group mean ratings) was substantial (.76, imagery; .87, meaningfulness). However, agreement between individual Ss was low for both dimensions (.18, imagery; .27, meaningfulness), though significant. Exp. 2 examined Paivio's (1971) dual-coding hypothesis applied to sentence memory through correlation of both individual ratings and group mean ratings with sentence recognition scores. Neither method yielded a significant correlation between learning and imagery, or meaningfulness. Apparently the dual-coding hypothesis cannot be straightforwardly applied to memory for sentences, despite its predictive strength for single-word learning tasks.