Book reading shows large individual variability and correlates with better language ability and more empathy. This makes reading exposure an interesting variable to study. Research in English suggests that an author recognition test is the most reliable objective assessment of reading frequency. In this article, we describe the efforts we made to build and test a Dutch author recognition test (DART for older participants and DART_R for younger participants). Our data show that the test is reliable and valid, both in the Netherlands and in Belgium (split-half reliability over .9 with university students, significant correlations with language abilities) and can be used with a young, non-university population. The test is free to use for research purposes.

This resource contains data from 112 Dutch adults (18–29 years of age) who completed the Individual Differences in Language Skills test battery that included 33 behavioural tests assessing language skills and domain-general cognitive skills likely involved in language tasks. The battery included tests measuring linguistic experience (e.g. vocabulary size, prescriptive grammar knowledge), general cognitive skills (e.g. working memory, non-verbal intelligence) and linguistic processing skills (word production/comprehension, sentence production/comprehension). Testing was done in a lab-based setting resulting in high quality data due to tight monitoring of the experimental protocol and to the use of software and hardware that were optimized for behavioural testing. Each participant completed the battery twice (i.e., two test days of four hours each). We provide the raw data from all tests on both days as well as pre-processed data that were used to calculate various reliability measures (including internal consistency and test-retest reliability). We encourage other researchers to use this resource for conducting exploratory and/or targeted analyses of individual differences in language and general cognitive skills.

When estimating the influence of sentence complexity on reading, researchers typically opt for one of two main approaches: Measuring syntactic complexity (SC) or transitional probability (TP). Comparisons of the predictive power of both approaches have yielded mixed results. To address this inconsistency, we conducted a self-paced reading experiment. Participants read sentences of varying syntactic complexity. From two alternatives, we selected the set of SC and TP measures, respectively, that provided the best fit to the self-paced reading data. We then compared the contributions of the SC and TP measures to self-paced reading times when entered into the same model. Our results showed that while both measures explained significant portions of variance in reading times (over and above control variables: word/sentence length, word frequency and word position) when included in independent models, their contributions changed drastically when SC and TP were entered into the same model. Specifically, we only observed significant effects of TP. We conclude that in our experiment the control variables explained the bulk of variance. When comparing the small effects of SC and TP, the effects of TP appear to be more robust.

Individuals exhibit massive variability in general cognitive skills that affect language processing. This variability is partly developmental. Here, we recruited a large sample of participants (N = 487), ranging from 9 to 90 years of age, and examined the involvement of nonverbal processing speed (assessed using visual and auditory reaction time tasks) and working memory (assessed using forward and backward Digit Span tasks) in a visual world task. Participants saw two objects on the screen and heard a sentence that referred to one of them. In half of the sentences, the target object could be predicted based on verb-selectional restrictions. We observed evidence for anticipatory processing on predictable compared to non-predictable trials. Visual and auditory processing speed had main effects on sentence comprehension and facilitated predictive processing, as evidenced by an interaction. We observed only weak evidence for the involvement of working memory in predictive sentence comprehension. Age had a nonlinear main effect (younger adults responded faster than children and older adults), but it did not differentially modulate predictive and non-predictive processing, nor did it modulate the involvement of processing speed and working memory. Our results contribute to delineating the cognitive skills that are involved in language-vision interactions.

Written language comprehension requires readers to integrate incoming information with stored mental knowledge to construct meaning. Literally plausible idiomatic expressions can activate both figurative and literal interpretations, which convey different meanings. Previous research has shown that contexts biasing the figurative or literal interpretation of an idiom can facilitate its processing. Moreover, there is evidence that processing of idiomatic expressions is subject to individual differences in linguistic knowledge and cognitive-linguistic skills. It is therefore conceivable that individuals vary in the extent to which they experience context-induced facilitation in processing idiomatic expressions. To explore the interplay between reader-related variables and contextual facilitation, we conducted a self-paced reading experiment. We recruited participants who had recently completed a battery of 33 behavioural tests measuring individual differences in linguistic knowledge, general cognitive skills and linguistic processing skills. In the present experiment, a subset of these participants read idiomatic expressions that were either presented in isolation or preceded by a figuratively or literally biasing context. We conducted analyses on the reading times of idiom-final nouns and the word thereafter (spill-over region) across the three conditions, including participants’ scores from the individual differences battery. Our results showed no main effect of the preceding context, but substantial variation between readers and variation in contextual facilitation. We encourage interested researchers to exploit the present dataset for follow-up studies on individual differences in idiom processing.