## 3 Results  
Figure 4 and Table 1 show how the ratings of the sweetness of a typeface were related to the ratings of the pleasantness of a typeface. According to the literature, we expected that typefaces rated as more pleasant would also be rated as sweeter. The results show a statistically significant correlation between the rating of the sweetness of the typeface and the rating of its pleasantness. There was a statistically significant interaction between the age group and the rating of sweetness--the relationship between sweetness and pleasantness was slightly stronger in elementary school students (children) than in university students (adults). In general, age _per se_ was also a statistically significant predictor of pleasantness ratings, with children using slightly higher pleasantness ratings than adults. An inspection of the random effects in the model showed that the between-subject variance (0.02) was much smaller than the within-subject variance (1.16). The intraclass correlation coefficient was small (ICC = 0.02) and adding random intercepts did not improve the model fit significantly (LRT(1) = 1.19, \(p\) = 0.276). These results indicate that there was very little variation in the ratings of typeface pleasantness between individuals of the same age. On average, children rated the typefaces very similarly, as did adults. However, different typefaces were rated with significant differences in pleasantness--meaning typefaces with different shapes received varying pleasantness ratings. (\(var_{\text{between subjects}}=0.17\), \(var_{\text{within subjects}}=1.41\), ICC = 0.107, LRT(1) = 28.7, \(p=<0.001\)), indicating that the differences in sweetness ratings across individuals (e.g., due to personal preferences or individual biases) needed to be taken into account when modelling the data. The large within-subject variance nevertheless suggests that typefaces were perceived as different in their sweetness. Figure 5 and Table 2 show how typeface shape predicted readers' imagined sweetness ratings. Typeface shape and age group were found to be statistically significant factors for sweetness ratings, while no significant interaction was found between the two factors. Both younger and older readers rated round/rounded typefaces as sweeter compared to angular/pointed typefaces. In general, elementary school students rated sweetness higher than adults. Finally, we analysed the relationship between the ratings of typeface sweetness and two indicators of reading fluency in both age groups (Figure 6, Tables 3 and 4). Accounting for the between-subject differences by adding random intercepts in the model for predicting the reading speed improved the model fit significantly (\(var_{\text{between subjects}}=739\), \(var_{\text{within subjects}}=232\), ICC = 0.761, LRT(1) = 913, \(p<0.001\)). There were large differences in reading times between individuals of the same age. Meanwhile, the between-subject variance in text comprehension was low (\(var_{\text{between subjects}}=0.00\), \(var_{\text{within subjects}}=1.00\), deviance = 586.1, \(\chi^{2}/df=1.01\), \(p=1.00\)). Concerning the fixed effects in the models, there was no interaction between the age group and the sweetness of the typeface in the prediction of the reading speed (Table 3) and the prediction of text comprehension (Table 4). The relationship between the ratings of typeface sweetness and reading speed or text comprehension was therefore similar for younger and older readers. The sweetness of the typeface had a statistically significant relationship with the reading speed, an indicator of reading fluency--the sweeter the typeface, the shorter the reading time per character (Table 3, Figure 6A). The relationship between the rating of the sweetness of the typeface and text comprehension did not reach statistical significance (Table 4), although a similar trend