Figure 1
Experimental procedure for a single trial for the Decision-Redecision Paradigm.
Table 1
Demographic and linguistic background of the participant pool in Study 1.
| MEAN | SD | |
|---|---|---|
| Age | 32.83 | 9.10 |
| Age of Acquisition of FL | 6.77 | 6.31 |
| NL proficiency (7 = highest) | 6.99 | 0.12 |
| FL proficiency (7 = highest) | 5.53 | 1.13 |
| FL exposure (7 = highest) | 5.35 | 1.70 |
Figure 2
Interaction of Language and Dilemma on Decision with bars showing raw proportions and lines showing model-predicted probabilities with 95% CIs.
Figure 3
Interaction of Language and Dilemma on Decision Reversal with bars showing raw proportions and lines showing model-predicted probabilities with 95% CIs.
Figure 4
Interaction of Language and Dilemma on Decision Time with violins showing raw data distribution and lines showing model-predicted means with 95% CIs.
Figure 5
Interaction of Language and Dilemma on FOR with violins showing raw data distribution and lines showing model-predicted means with 95% CIs.
Figure 6
Correlation between FOR and Redecision Time showing Raw data with fitted line from Gamma GLM and 95% CIs.
Table 2
Demographic and linguistic background of the participant pool in Study 2.
| MEAN | SD | |
|---|---|---|
| Age | 30.72 | 8.74 |
| Age of Acquisition of FL | 6.64 | 6.26 |
| NL proficiency (7 = highest) | 6.95 | 0.22 |
| FL proficiency (7 = highest) | 5.41 | 1.12 |
| FL exposure (7 = highest) | 5.67 | 1.47 |
Figure 7
(A) The effect of Language on FOR with violins showing raw data distribution and lines showing model-predicted means with 95% Cis; (B) The effect of RP (relative proficiency) on FOR with jitters showing raw data points and model-predicted fitted line with 95% CIs.
Figure 8
Correlation between FOR and Redecision Time showing raw data points with fitted line from Gamma GLM and 95% CIs.