“…However, if the halfalogue is only more disruptive than the dialogue for the normal speech condition, then the semantic (un)predictability account would prevail (Emberson et al, 2010;Monk, Fellas, & Ley, 2004;Norman & Bennett, 2014 font shields against distraction in paradigms that are theoretically-oriented (Hughes et al, 2013;Marsh, Sörqvist, & Hughes, 2015), and for tasks that hold applied relevance for office and scholastic environments such as proofreading and reading comprehension (Faber, Mills, Kopp, & D'mello, 2017;Halin, 2016;Halin, Marsh, Haga et al, 2014;Halin, Marsh, Hellman et al, 2014). A typical explanation of these findings is that the perceptually disfluent font acts as a metacognitive cue that the task is difficult (e.g., Bjork, Dunlosky, & Kornell, 2013;Thompson, 2010), with the metacognitive system instigating a compensatory upward shift in task-engagement (or concentration) such that an individual can maintain a desired performance level Eggemeir, Crabtree, & LaPointe, 1983; see also Ball, Threadgold, Solowiej, & Marsh, 2018). It is suggested that the greater task-engagement that the perceptually disfluent font demands, leads to a more steadfast locus of attention (e.g., unexpected irrelevant stimuli are less likely to capture attention away from the focal task) and reduces processing (and therefore awareness) of the surrounding environment .…”