Eye-tracking the effect of word order in sentence comprehension in aphasia: evidence from Basque, a free word order ergative language

Figures & data

Table

(6)	Txakurr-a-k	katu-a- Ø	harrapatu	du.
	dog-det-erg	cat-det-abs	caught	aux.has
	The dog has caught the cat.

Table

(7)	Txakurr-a- Ø	etorri	da.
	dog-det-abs	arrived	aux.is
	The dog has arrived.

Table

(8)	(Katu-a-k)	txakurr-a- Ø	harrapa-tu	du.
	(cat-det-erg)	dog-det-abs	catch-perf.	aux.has
	(The cat) has caught the dog.
(9)	Txakurr-a-Ø	katu-a-k	harrapa-tu	du.
	dog-det-abs	cat-det-erg	catch-perf.	aux.has
	The cat has caught the dog.

Table

(10)	Katu-ak-Ø	txakurr-a-k	harrapa-tu	ditu.
	cat-det.pl-abs	dog-det.sg-erg catch-perf.		aux.has
	The dog has caught the cats.

Figure 1. Sample visual display. Target stimulus (SOV): “Arbitroak atezaina bultzatu du” (The referee has pushed the goalkeeper). (A) Target picture; (B) foil.

Table

(15)	Subject – object – verb (– aux)
	Andere-a-k	neskato-a-Ø	orraz-tu	du
	lady-det-erg	girl-det-(abs)	comb-perf.	aux.has
(16)	Object – subject – verb (– aux)
	Neskato-a-Ø	andere-a-k	orraz-tu	du
	girl-det-abs	lady-det-erg	comb-perf.	aux.has
(17)	Verb (– aux) – subject – object
	Orraz-tu	du	andere-a-k	neskato-a-Ø
	comb-perf.	aux.has	lady-det-erg	girl-det-abs
(18)	Verb (– aux) – object – subject
	Orraz-tu	du	neskato-a-Ø	andere-a-k
	comb-perf.	aux.has	girl-det-abs	lady-det-erg

Table

(19)	Dantzari-a- Ø	bapatean	argaldu	da
	dancer-det-abs	suddenly	become.thin	aux.has
(20)	Bapatean	dantzari-a-Ø	argaldu	da
	Suddenly	dancer-det-abs	become.thin	aux.has
(21)	Argaldu	da	dantzari-a- Ø	bapatean
	become thin	aux.has	dancer-det-abs	suddenly
(22)	Argaldu	da	bapatean	dantzari-a- Ø
	become thin	aux.has	suddenly	dancer-det-abs
	The dancer has suddenly become thin.

Table 1. Comprehension accuracy and standard error (SE) as a function of group and sentence condition.

Condition	Accuracy % (SE)
	PWA	NBD
SOV	75.81 (3.47)	91.19 (2.25)
OSV	45.80 (4.01)	90.56 (2.32)
VSO	71.14 (3.72)	93.71 (1.93)
VOS	52.28 (4.05)	87.97 (2.59)

Table 2. Comparison of response accuracy between groups across sentence conditions.

	Group	LSMeans (95% CI)	β	SE	z-Ratio	p
SOV	NBD	2.65 (1.80–3.51)	1.315	0.564	2.328	0.0199
	PWA	1.34 (0.60–2.08)
OSV	NBD	2.57 (1.73–3.42)	2.736	0.553	4.944	<0.0001
	PWA	−0.15 (−0.87–0.55)
VSO	NBD	3.00 (2.09–3.91)	1.946	0.583	3.334	0.0009
	PWA	1.05 (0.32–1.79)
VOS	NBD	2.23 (1.42–3.03)	2.102	0.534	3.932	0.0001
	PWA	0.12 (−0.58–0.84)

Note: Significance level p < 0.05.

Table 3. Comprehension accuracy differences between sentence conditions in PWA and NBD groups.

	LSMeans (95% CI)	OSV				VSO				VOS
		β	SE	z-Ratio	p	β	SE	z-Ratio	p	β	SE	z-Ratio	p
PWA group
SOV	−0.15 (−0.87–0.55)	−1.502	0.360	−4.170	0.0002	−0.286	0.344	−0.829	0.8403	−1.217	0.356	−3.419	0.0035
OSV	1.34 (0.60–2.08)	–	–	–	–	1.216	0.359	3.384	0.0040	0.285	0.368	0.774	0.8658
VSO	0.12 (−0.58–0.84)	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–0.931	0.355	−2.621	0.0435
VOS	1.05 (0.32–1.79)	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
NBD group
SOV	2.57 (1.73–3.42)	−0.081	0.468	−0.174	0.9981	0.347	0.447	0.777	0.8649	−0.428	0.495	−0.864	0.8233
OSV	2.65 (1.80–3.51)	–	–	–	–	0.429	0.451	0.949	0.7781	−0.346	0.499	−0.693	0.8998
VSO	2.23 (1.42–3.03)	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	−0.775	0.478	−1.620	0.3671
VOS	3.00 (2.09–3.91)	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–

Note: Significance level p < 0.05.

Figure 2. Log transformed RTs as a function of group, sentence condition and correctness of the response.

Table 4. Mean RT and SE as function of group and sentence condition.

Condition	Mean RT (SE) in ms
	PWA	NBD
SOV	4635.64 (161.96)	3619.69 (102.58)
OSV	4898.85 (174.77)	3953.67 (100.91)
VSO	4921.31 (168.28)	3891.77 (107.44)
VOS	5022.03(173.55)	4125.95 (90.58)

Table 5. RT differences between groups across sentence condition.

		LSMeans (95% CI)	β	SE	z-Ratio	p
SOV	NBD	8.11 (7.86–8.36)	−0.233	0.163	−1.433	0.1719
	PWA	8.35 (8.10–8.59)
OSV	NBD	8.23 (7.98–8.48)	−0.168	0.163	−1.031	0.3184
	PWA	8.40 (8.15–8.65)
VSO	NBD	8.22 (7.97–8.47)	−0.216	0.163	−1.326	0.2042
	PWA	8.43 (8.19–8.68)
VOS	NBD	8.29 (8.04–8.54)	−0.145	0.163	−0.893	0.3857
	PWA	8.43 (8.18–8.68)

Note: Significance level p < 0.05.

Table 6. RT differences between sentence conditions in PWA and NBD groups.

	LSMeans (95% CI)	OSV				VSO				VOS
		β	SE	z-Ratio	p	β	SE	z-Ratio	p	β	SE	z-Ratio	p
PWA group
SOV	8.35 (8.10–8.59)	−0.050	0.042	−1.207	0.6252	−0.089	0.042	−2.101	0.1652	−0.087	0.042	−2.076	0.1738
OSV	8.40 (8.15–8.64)	–	–	–	–	–0.038	0.042	–0.914	0.7975	–0.036	0.041	–0.876	0.8171
VSO	8.43 (8.19–8.68)	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	0.002	0.042	0.048	1.0000
VOS	8.43 (8.19–8.68)	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
NBD group
SOV	8.11 (7.86–8.36)	−0.116	0.041	−2.786	0.0360	−0.106	0.042	−2.547	0.0640	−0.175	0.041	−4.203	0.0006
OSV	8.23 (7.98–8.48)	–	–	–	–	0.009	0.041	0.228	0.9958	−0.059	0.041	−1.421	0.4919
VSO	8.22 (7.97–8.47)	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	−0.068	0.041	−1.642	0.3641
VOS	8.29 (8.04–8.54)	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–

Note: Significance level p < 0.05.

Table 7. Trial number effect on the RT across sentence conditions in PWA and NBD groups.

		LSMeans (95% CI)	β	SE	z-Ratio	p
PWA group
SOV	≈1	8.37 (8.12–8.63)	0.053	0.074	0.716	0.4751
	≈80	8.32 (8.06–8.58)
OSV	≈1	8.42 (8.16–8.67)	0.038	0.073	0.524	0.6009
	≈80	8.38 (8.12–8.63)
VSO	≈1	8.45 (8.19–8.72)	0.038	0.074	0.522	0.6022
	≈80	8.42 (8.16–8.67)
VOS	≈1	8.44 (8.19–8.70)	0.022	0.077	0.297	0.7671
	≈80	8.42 (8.16–8.68)
NBD group
SOV	≈1	8.30 (8.04–8.56)	0.373	0.072	5.143	<0.0001
	≈80	7.93 (7.67–8.19)
OSV	≈1	8.33 (8.07–8.58)	0.198	0.068	2.888	0.0043
	≈80	8.13 (7.87–8.39)
VSO	≈1	8.25 (8.00–8.51)	0.072	0.069	1.045	0.2975
	≈80	8.18 (7.93–8.44)
VOS	≈1	8.33 (8.07–8.58)	0.078	0.073	1.059	0.2905
	≈80	8.25 (7.99–8.51)

Νοtes: ≈1 = Initial trials; ≈80 = final trials. Significance level p < 0.05.

Table 8. Hypothesis-driven model. RT differences between groups across sentence conditions.

		LSMeans (95% CI)	β	SE	z-Ratio	p
SOV	NBD	8.10 (7.85–8.35)	−0.269	0.163	−1.641	0.1201
	PWA	8.37 (8.12–8.62)
OSV	NBD	8.29 (8.04–8.54)	−0.105	0.163	−0.645	0.5282
	PWA	8.40 (8.15–8.64)
VSO	NBD	8.26 (8.00–8.51)	−0.184	0.165	−1.117	0.2800
	PWA	8.44 (8.19–8.69)
VOS	NBD	8.27 (8.02–8.52)	−0.162	0.162	−1.000	0.3325
	PWA	8.43 (8.18–8.68)

Note: Significance level p < 0.05.

Table 9. Hypothesis-driven model. PWA and NBD groups: RT differences between sentence conditions.

	LSMeans (95% CI)	OSV				VSO				VOS
		β	SE	z-Ratio	p	β	SE	z-Ratio	p	β	SE	z-Ratio	p
PWA group
SOV	8.37 (8.14–8.60)	−0.027	0.043	−0.636	0.9200	−0.071	0.044	−1.610	0.3792	−0.063	0.043	−1.446	0.4756
OSV	8.40 (8.17–8.63)	–	–	–	–	−0.044	0.043	−1.022	0.7375	−0.035	0.042	−0.839	0.8355
VSO	8.44 (8.21–8.67)	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	0.008	0.043	0.202	0.9970
VOS	8.43 (8.20–8.66)	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
NBD group
SOV	8.10 (7.86–8.33)	−0.191	0.055	−3.435	0.0042	−0.156	0.059	−2.628	0.0453	−0.169	0.053	−3.139	0.0109
OSV	8.29 (8.06–8.53)	–	–	–	–	0.034	0.059	0.589	0.9353	0.022	0.053	0.413	0.9762
VSO	8.26 (8.02–8.49)	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	−0.012	0.057	−0.223	0.9961
VOS	8.27 (8.04–8.50)	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–

Note: Significance level p < 0.05 with Tukey’s correction for multiple comparison.

Table 10. Hypothesis-driven model. PWA group: RT differences between correct and incorrect responses.

		LSMeans (95% CI)	β	SE	z-Ratio	p
SOV	I	8.41 (8.15–8.66)	0.078	0.043	1.782	0.0751
	C	8.33 (8.08–8.58)
OSV	I	8.40 (8.15–8.65)	0.000	0.039	0.024	0.9813
	C	8.40 (8.15–8.65)
VSO	I	8.46 (8.21–8.71)	0.041	0.043	0.957	0.3386
	C	8.42 (8.17–8.67)
VOS	I	8.40 (8.15–8.65)	−0.060	0.039	−1.518	0.1292
	C	8.46 (8.21–8.71)

Notes: C = correct answers; I = incorrect answers. Significance level p < 0.05.

Figure 3. Gaze-fixation patterns across the visual stimuli during the auditory presentation of the sentence. Between-group comparison in the correct answers.

Table 11. Comparison of proportion of gaze fixations between verb-final (SOV and OSV) and verb-initial (VSO and VOS) conditions across ROIs, in correctly answered trials in NBD group.

OSV
	ROI1				ROI2				ROI3				ROI4
SOV	β	SE	z-Ratio	p	β	SE	z-Ratio	p	β	SE	z-Ratio	p	β	SE	z-Ratio	p
ROI1	0.386	0.303	1.274	0.2026	−0.326	0.303	−1.076	0.2820	−1.515	0.303	−4.990	<0.0001	−1.369	0.303	−4.507	<0.0001
ROI2	0.981	0.303	3.236	0.0012	0.269	0.303	0.888	0.3746	−0.920	0.303	−3.030	0.0024	−0.774	0.303	−2.549	0.0108
ROI3	1.759	0.303	5.789	<0.0001	1.047	0.303	3.448	0.0006	−0.141	0.304	−0.466	0.6410	0.003	0.304	0.011	0.9911
ROI4	1.893	0.305	6.201	<0.0001	1.180	0.304	3.871	0.0001	−0.008	0.305	−0.028	0.9779	0.136	0.305	0.447	0.6547
VOS
	ROI1				ROI2				ROI3				ROI4
VSO	β	SE	z-Ratio	p	β	SE	z-Ratio	p	β	SE	z-Ratio	p	β	SE	z-Ratio	p
ROI1	0.134	0.304	0.442	0.6588	−0.010	0.303	−0.033	0.9733	−0.866	0.303	−2.852	0.0043	−1.926	0.305	−6.314	<0.0001
ROI2	0.972	0.304	3.194	0.0014	0.827	0.303	2.725	0.0064	−0.028	0.304	−0.094	0.9255	−1.088	0.305	−3.565	0.0004
ROI3	1.634	0.304	5.360	<0.0001	1.490	0.304	4.897	<0.0001	0.634	0.304	2.081	0.0374	−0.426	0.306	−1.394	0.1634
ROI4	1.926	0.304	6.316	<0.0001	1.781	0.304	5.855	<0.0001	0.925	0.304	3.038	0.0024	−0.134	0.306	−0.441	0.6594

Notes: ROI = region of interest; ROI1 = first constituent of the sentence; ROI2 = second constituent of the sentence; ROI3 = third constituent of the sentence; ROI4 = post-offset region. Significance level p < 0.003 with Bonferroni’s correction for multiple comparison.

Table 12. Comparison of proportion of gaze fixations between verb-final (SOV and OSV) and verb-initial (VSO and VOS) conditions across ROIs, in correctly answered trials in PWA group.

OSV
	ROI1				ROI2				ROI3				ROI4
SOV	β	SE	z-Ratio	p	β	SE	z-Ratio	p	β	SE	z-Ratio	p	β	SE	z-Ratio	p
ROI1	0.200	0.357	0.559	0.5760	−0.284	0.360	−0.791	0.4292	−0.949	0.360	−2.632	0.0085	−1.192	0.359	−3.321	0.0009
ROI2	1.087	0.358	3.033	0.0024	0.602	0.361	1.668	0.0952	−0.062	0.361	−0.172	0.8636	−0.304	0.359	−0.846	0.3974
ROI3	1.312	0.357	3.670	0.0002	0.827	0.360	2.297	0.0216	0.162	0.360	0.452	0.6516	−0.079	0.358	−0.222	0.8247
ROI4	1.271	0.359	3.536	0.0004	0.786	0.362	2.171	0.0299	0.121	0.362	0.335	0.7374	−0.120	0.360	−0.335	0.7377
VOS
	ROI1				ROI2				ROI3				ROI4
VSO	β	SE	z-Ratio	p	β	SE	z-Ratio	p	β	SE	z-Ratio	p	β	SE	z-Ratio	p
ROI1	−0.495	0.359	−1.380	0.1676	−0.428	0.362	−1.184	0.2366	−0.911	0.359	−2.534	0.0113	−1.211	0.360	−3.358	0.0008
ROI2	0.342	0.360	0.950	0.3422	0.409	0.363	1.125	0.2604	−0.074	0.361	−0.205	0.8375	−0.374	0.362	−1.033	0.3017
ROI3	1.037	0.360	2.879	0.0040	1.103	0.363	3.038	0.0024	0.620	0.360	1.720	0.0855	0.320	0.362	0.886	0.3757
ROI4	0.935	0.362	2.581	0.0099	1.002	0.365	2.742	0.0061	0.519	0.363	1.429	0.1530	0.218	0.364	0.601	0.5477

Notes: ROI = region of interest; ROI1 = first constituent of the sentence; ROI2 = second constituent of the sentence; ROI3 = third constituent of the sentence; ROI4 = post-offset region. Significance level p < 0.003 with Bonferroni’s correction for multiple comparison.

Table 13. Comparison of proportion of gaze fixations between verb-final (SOV and OSV) and verb-initial (VSO and VOS) conditions across ROIs, in incorrectly answered trials in PWA group.

OSV
	ROI1				ROI2				ROI3				ROI4
SOV	β	SE	z-Ratio	p	β	SE	z-Ratio	p	β	SE	z-Ratio	p	β	SE	z-Ratio	p
ROI1	−0.412	0.460	−0.896	0.3702	0.004	0.458	0.011	0.9913	0.251	0.459	0.546	0.5848	0.234	0.461	0.507	0.6124
ROI2	−0.530	0.460	−1.153	0.2491	−0.113	0.457	−0.247	0.8051	0.133	0.459	0.290	0.7720	0.116	0.461	0.251	0.8016
ROI3	−0.248	0.453	−0.548	0.5836	0.168	0.451	0.375	0.7080	0.415	0.452	0.917	0.3590	0.397	0.454	0.875	0.3816
ROI4	−0.863	0.456	−1.891	0.0587	−0.446	0.454	−0.982	0.3263	−0.199	0.455	−0.438	0.6610	−0.216	0.458	−0.474	0.6358
VOS
	ROI1				ROI2				ROI3				ROI4
VSO	β	SE	z-Ratio	p	β	SE	z-Ratio	p	β	SE	z-Ratio	p	β	SE	z-Ratio	p
ROI1	−0.051	0.446	−0.115	0.9087	0.552	0.443	1.244	0.2133	1.199	0.443	2.704	0.0069	1.285	0.445	2.883	0.0039
ROI2	−0.302	0.444	−0.682	0.4954	0.300	0.441	0.681	0.4958	0.948	0.441	2.148	0.0317	1.033	0.443	2.331	0.0197
ROI3	−0.288	0.447	−0.645	0.5187	0.314	0.444	0.707	0.4794	0.962	0.444	2.163	0.0305	1.047	0.446	2.345	0.0190
ROI4	−0.930	0.451	−2.058	0.0396	−0.326	0.449	−0.727	0.4671	0.320	0.448	0.715	0.4747	0.406	0.451	0.902	0.3672

Notes: ROI = region of interest; ROI1 = first constituent of the sentence; ROI2 = second constituent of the sentence; ROI3 = third constituent of the sentence; ROI4 = post-offset region. Significance level p < 0.003 with Bonferroni’s correction for multiple comparison.

Table 14. Comparison of the linear predictor of gaze-fixation data with zero in each sentence condition and ROI in both NBD and PWA groups.

Condition	ROI	NBD correct			PWA correct			PWA incorrect
		LSM (95% CI)	t (df)	p	LSM (95% CI)	t (df)	p	LSM (95% CI)	t (df)	p
SOV	ROI1	0.10 (−0.33–0.54)	0.473 (142)	0.6368	0.27 (−0.19–0.74)	1.140 (115)	0.2565	−0.54 (−1.29–0.19)	1.448 (36)	0.1562
	ROI2	0.70 (0.25–1.14)	3.118 (142)	0.0022	1.16 (0.68–1.63)	4.272 (115)	<0.0001	−0.66 (−1.40–0.07)	1.761 (36)	0.0866
	ROI3	1.48 (1.03–1.92)	6.546 (142)	<0.0001	1.38 (0.91–1.85)	5.797 (115)	<0.0001	−0.38 (−1.10–0.34)	1.038 (36)	0.3060
	ROI4	1.61 (1.16–2.06)	7.083 (142)	<0.0001	1.34 (0.86–1.82)	5.686 (115)	<0.0001	−0.99 (−1.73–−0.26)	2.673 (36)	0.0112
OSV	ROI1	−0.27 (−0.72–0.16)	1.241 (143)	0.2164	0.07 (−0.48–0.62)	0.260 (70)	0.7954	−0.13 (−0.68–0.41)	0.483 (81)	0.6300
	ROI2	0.43 (−0.00–0.87)	1.926 (143)	0.0560	0.55 (−0.00–1.11)	1.951 (70)	0.0550	−0.55 (−1.09–−0.01)	1.998 (81)	0.0490
	ROI3	1.62 (1.17–2.06)	7.208 (143)	<0.0001	1.22 (0.66–1.78)	4.271 (70)	<0.0001	−0.79 (−1.34–−0.25)	2.865 (81)	0.0053
	ROI4	1.47 (1.03–1.91)	6.543 (143)	<0.0001	1.46 (0.90–2.02)	5.185 (70)	<0.0001	−0.78 (−1.33–−0.22)	2.767 (81)	0.0070
VSO	ROI1	−0.09 (−0.52–0.34)	0.415 (147)	0.6781	−0.28 (−0.77–0.20)	1.127 (104)	0.2622	−0.08 (−0.77–0.60)	0.231 (42)	0.8179
	ROI2	0.74 (0.30–1.18)	3.357 (147)	0.0010	0.55 (0.06–1.05)	2.198 (104)	0.0301	−0.33 (−1.01–0.35)	0.953 (42)	0.3457
	ROI3	1.40 (0.96–1.84)	6.316 (147)	<0.0001	1.25 (0.75–1.74)	5.036 (104)	<0.0001	−0.31 (−1.01–0.37)	0.904 (42)	0.3708
	ROI4	1.69 (1.25–2.13)	7.612 (147)	<0.0001	1.14 (0.64–1.64)	4.644 (104)	<0.0001	−0.96 (−1.66–−0.25)	2.675 (42)	0.0106
VOS	ROI1	−0.22 (−0.67–0.22)	0.991 (136)	0.3232	0.21 (−0.32–0.75)	0.773 (77)	0.4418	−0.03 (−0.60–0.54)	0.104 (70)	0.9169
	ROI2	−0.08 (−0.52–0.36)	0.362 (136)	0.7177	0.14 (−0.40–0.69)	0.523 (77)	0.6025	−0.63 (−1.19–−0.07)	2.209 (70)	0.0304
	ROI3	0.77 (0.325–1.22)	3.394 (136)	0.0009	0.62 (0.08–1.17)	2.278 (77)	0.0255	−1.28 (−1.84–−0.71)	4.575 (70)	<0.0001
	ROI4	1.83 (1.38−2.28)	7.667 (136)	<0.0001	0.92 (0.38–1.47)	4.104 (77)	0.0001	−1.36 (−1.93–−0.79)	4.762 (70)	<0.0001

Notes: ROI = region of interest; ROI1 = first constituent of the sentence; ROI2 = second constituent of the sentence; ROI3 = third constituent of the sentence; ROI4 = post-offset region. Significance level p < 0.05.

Table 15. Between-group comparison of the gaze fixations patterns in the correct answers as a function of ROI and sentence conditions.

		LSMeans (95% CI)	β	SE	z-Ratio	p		LSMeans (95% CI)	β	SE	z-Ratio	p
	SOV						OSV
ROI1	NBD	0.10 (−0.33–0.54)	−0.166	0.321	−0.52	0.6033	NBD	−0.27 (−0.72–0.16)	−0.353	0.353	−0.998	0.3182
	PWA	0.27 (−0.19–0.74)					PWA	0.07 (−0.48–0.62)
ROI2	NBD	0.70 (0.25–1.14)	−0.459	0.322	−1.426	0.1538	NBD	0.43 (−0.00–0.87)	−0.125	0.356	−0.353	0.7240
	PWA	1.16 (0.68–1.63)					PWA	0.55 (−0.00–1.11)
ROI3	NBD	1.48 (1.03–1.92)	0.093	0.321	0.291	0.7708	NBD	1.62 (1.17–2.06)	0.398	0.357	1.116	0.2646
	PWA	1.38 (0.91–1.85)					PWA	1.22 (0.66–1.78)
ROI4	NBD	1.61 (1.16–2.06)	0.268	0.325	0.826	0.4088	NBD	1.47 (1.03–1.91)	0.010	0.355	0.03	0.9758
	PWA	1.34 (0.86–1.82)					PWA	1.46 (0.90–2.02)
	VSO						VOS
ROI1	NBD	−0.09 (−0.52–0.34)	0.189	0.327	0.58	0.5619	NBD	−0.22 (−0.67–0.22)	−0.439	0.350	−1.256	0.2092
	PWA	−0.28 (−0.77–0.20)					PWA	0.21 (−0.32–0.75)
ROI2	NBD	0.74 (0.30–1.18)	0.189	0.328	0.577	0.5641	NBD	−0.08 (−0.52–0.36)	−0.228	0.352	−0.648	0.5169
	PWA	0.55 (0.06–1.05)					PWA	0.14 (−0.40–0.69)
ROI3	NBD	1.40 (0.96–1.84)	0.157	0.329	0.478	0.6327	NBD	0.77 (0.32–1.22)	0.144	0.350	0.411	0.6811
	PWA	1.25 (0.75–1.74)					PWA	0.62 (0.08–1.17)
ROI4	NBD	1.69 (1.25–2.13)	0.550	0.331	1.66	0.0969	NBD	1.83 (1.38–2.28)	0.904	0.353	2.562	0.0104
	PWA	1.14 (0.64–1.64)					PWA	0.92 (0.38–1.47)

Notes: ROI = region of interest; ROI1 = first constituent of the sentence; ROI2 = second constituent of the sentence; ROI3 = third constituent of the sentence; ROI4 = post-offset region. Significance level p < 0.05.

Figure 4. Gaze-fixation pattern across the visual stimuli during the auditory presentation of the sentence. Comparison between the correct and incorrect answers in the PWA group.

Table 16. Comparison of gaze-fixation patterns as a function of ROI and response accuracy in PWA group.

		LSMeans (95% CI)	β	SE	z-Ratio	p		LSMeans (95% CI)	β	SE	z-Ratio	p
	SOV						OSV
ROI1	I	−0.54 (−1.29–0.19)	−0.821	0.437	−1.879	0.0603	I	−0.13 (−0.68–0.41)	−0.209	0.386	−0.541	0.5882
	C	0.27 (−0.19–0.74)					C	0.07 (−0.48–0.62)
ROI2	I	−0.66 (−1.40–0.07)	−1.827	0.438	−4.172	<0.0001	I	−0.55 (−1.09–−0.01)	−1.111	0.386	−2.878	0.0040
	C	1.16 (0.68–1.63)					C	0.55 (−0.00–1.11)
ROI3	I	−0.38 (−1.10–0.34)	−1.770	0.430	−4.117	<0.0001	I	−0.79 (−1.34–−0.25)	−2.022	0.388	−5.208	<0.0001
	C	1.38 (0.91–1.85)					C	1.22 (0.66–1.78)
ROI4	I	−0.99 (−1.73–−0.26)	−2.344	0.435	−5.387	<0.0001	I	−0.78 (−1.33–−0.22)	−2.248	0.389	−5.773	<0.0001
	C	1.34 (0.86–1.82)					C	1.46 (0.90–2.02)
	VSO						VOS
ROI1	I	−0.08 (−0.77–0.60)	0.200	0.421	0.476	0.6338	I	−0.03 (−0.60–0.54)	−0.243	0.389	−0.625	0.5317
	C	−0.28 (−0.77–0.20)					C	0.21 (−0.32–0.75)
ROI2	I	−0.33 (−1.01–0.35)	−0.888	0.420	−2.114	0.0345	I	−0.63 (−1.19–−0.07)	−0.780	0.388	−2.007	0.0448
	C	0.55 (0.06–1.05)					C	0.14 (−0.40–0.69)
ROI3	I	−0.31 (−1.01–0.37)	−1.569	0.423	−3.703	0.0002	I	−1.28 (−1.84–−0.71)	−1.910	0.386	−4.945	<0.0001
	C	1.25 (0.75–1.74)					C	0.62 (0.08–1.17)
ROI4	I	−0.96 (−1.66–−0.25)	−2.109	0.430	−4.904	<0.0001	I	−1.36 (−1.93–−0.79)	−2.296	0.389	−5.892	<0.0001
	C	1.14 (0.647–1.64)					C	0.92 (0.38–1.47)

Notes: ROI = region of interest; ROI1 = first constituent of the sentence; ROI2 = second constituent of the sentence; ROI3 = third constituent of the sentence; ROI4 = post-offset region; I = incorrect answer; C = correct answer. Significance level p < 0.05.