{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019095477386934675, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005025125628140704, 'mean_word_length': 5.821917808219178, '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}}
Are performance predictions for text based on ease of processing?

In 4 experiments, the authors evaluated the hypothesis that performance predictions for text are based on ease of processing. In each experiment, participants read texts, predicted their performance for each one, and then were tested. Ease of processing was manipulated by having participants read texts that varied in coherence. Coherence was varied by manipulating causal relatedness across sentence pairs (Experiments 1 and 2) and by altering the structure of sentences within paragraphs (Experiment 3). In these experiments, prediction magnitudes increased as coherence increased, suggesting that predictions were based on processing ease. In Experiment 4, prediction magnitudes were greater for intact paragraphs than for paragraphs with letters deleted from some of the words. Discussion focuses on resolving apparent inconsistencies in the literature concerning whether processing ease influences performance predictions.