The Meta-Science of Adult Statistical Word Segmentation: Part 1
We report the first set of results in a multi-year project to assess the robustness – and the factors promoting robustness – of the adult statistical word segmentation literature. This includes eight total experiments replicating six different experiments. The purpose of these replications is to ass...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
University of California Press
2019-01-01
|
| Series: | Collabra: Psychology |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.collabra.org/articles/181 |
| _version_ | 1819178888667856896 |
|---|---|
| author | Joshua K. Hartshorne Lauren Skorb Sven L. Dietz Caitlin R. Garcia Gina L. Iozzo Katie E. Lamirato James R. Ledoux Jesse Mu Kara N. Murdock Jon Ravid Alyssa A. Savery James E. Spizzirro Kendall D. van Horne Juliani Vidal |
| author_facet | Joshua K. Hartshorne Lauren Skorb Sven L. Dietz Caitlin R. Garcia Gina L. Iozzo Katie E. Lamirato James R. Ledoux Jesse Mu Kara N. Murdock Jon Ravid Alyssa A. Savery James E. Spizzirro Kendall D. van Horne Juliani Vidal |
| author_sort | Joshua K. Hartshorne |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | We report the first set of results in a multi-year project to assess the robustness – and the factors promoting robustness – of the adult statistical word segmentation literature. This includes eight total experiments replicating six different experiments. The purpose of these replications is to assess the reproducibility of reported experiments, examine the replicability of their results, and provide more accurate effect size estimates. Reproducibility was mixed, with several papers either lacking crucial details or containing errors in the description of method, making it difficult to ascertain what was done. Replicability was also mixed: although in every instance we confirmed above-chance statistical word segmentation, many theoretically important moderations of that learning failed to replicate. Moreover, learning success was generally much lower than in the original studies. In the General Discussion, we consider whether these differences are due to differences in subject populations, low power in the original studies, or some combination of these and other factors. We also consider whether these findings are likely to generalize to the broader statistical word segmentation literature. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-22T21:49:43Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-0a833561c8b24189b391911f9ae1a2d1 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2474-7394 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-22T21:49:43Z |
| publishDate | 2019-01-01 |
| publisher | University of California Press |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Collabra: Psychology |
| spelling | doaj.art-0a833561c8b24189b391911f9ae1a2d12022-12-21T18:11:24ZengUniversity of California PressCollabra: Psychology2474-73942019-01-015110.1525/collabra.181109The Meta-Science of Adult Statistical Word Segmentation: Part 1Joshua K. Hartshorne0Lauren Skorb1Sven L. Dietz2Caitlin R. Garcia3Gina L. Iozzo4Katie E. Lamirato5James R. Ledoux6Jesse Mu7Kara N. Murdock8Jon Ravid9Alyssa A. Savery10James E. Spizzirro11Kendall D. van Horne12Juliani Vidal13Boston CollegeDepartment of Psychology, Boston CollegeDepartment of Psychology, Boston CollegeDepartment of Psychology, Boston CollegeDepartment of Psychology, Boston CollegeDepartment of Psychology, Boston CollegeDepartment of Psychology, Boston CollegeBoston CollegeDepartment of Psychology, Boston CollegeBoston CollegeDepartment of Psychology, Boston CollegeDepartment of Psychology, Boston CollegeDepartment of Psychology, Boston CollegeBoston CollegeWe report the first set of results in a multi-year project to assess the robustness – and the factors promoting robustness – of the adult statistical word segmentation literature. This includes eight total experiments replicating six different experiments. The purpose of these replications is to assess the reproducibility of reported experiments, examine the replicability of their results, and provide more accurate effect size estimates. Reproducibility was mixed, with several papers either lacking crucial details or containing errors in the description of method, making it difficult to ascertain what was done. Replicability was also mixed: although in every instance we confirmed above-chance statistical word segmentation, many theoretically important moderations of that learning failed to replicate. Moreover, learning success was generally much lower than in the original studies. In the General Discussion, we consider whether these differences are due to differences in subject populations, low power in the original studies, or some combination of these and other factors. We also consider whether these findings are likely to generalize to the broader statistical word segmentation literature.https://www.collabra.org/articles/181language acquisitionword segmentationstatistical learningreplication |
| spellingShingle | Joshua K. Hartshorne Lauren Skorb Sven L. Dietz Caitlin R. Garcia Gina L. Iozzo Katie E. Lamirato James R. Ledoux Jesse Mu Kara N. Murdock Jon Ravid Alyssa A. Savery James E. Spizzirro Kendall D. van Horne Juliani Vidal The Meta-Science of Adult Statistical Word Segmentation: Part 1 Collabra: Psychology language acquisition word segmentation statistical learning replication |
| title | The Meta-Science of Adult Statistical Word Segmentation: Part 1 |
| title_full | The Meta-Science of Adult Statistical Word Segmentation: Part 1 |
| title_fullStr | The Meta-Science of Adult Statistical Word Segmentation: Part 1 |
| title_full_unstemmed | The Meta-Science of Adult Statistical Word Segmentation: Part 1 |
| title_short | The Meta-Science of Adult Statistical Word Segmentation: Part 1 |
| title_sort | meta science of adult statistical word segmentation part 1 |
| topic | language acquisition word segmentation statistical learning replication |
| url | https://www.collabra.org/articles/181 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT joshuakhartshorne themetascienceofadultstatisticalwordsegmentationpart1 AT laurenskorb themetascienceofadultstatisticalwordsegmentationpart1 AT svenldietz themetascienceofadultstatisticalwordsegmentationpart1 AT caitlinrgarcia themetascienceofadultstatisticalwordsegmentationpart1 AT ginaliozzo themetascienceofadultstatisticalwordsegmentationpart1 AT katieelamirato themetascienceofadultstatisticalwordsegmentationpart1 AT jamesrledoux themetascienceofadultstatisticalwordsegmentationpart1 AT jessemu themetascienceofadultstatisticalwordsegmentationpart1 AT karanmurdock themetascienceofadultstatisticalwordsegmentationpart1 AT jonravid themetascienceofadultstatisticalwordsegmentationpart1 AT alyssaasavery themetascienceofadultstatisticalwordsegmentationpart1 AT jamesespizzirro themetascienceofadultstatisticalwordsegmentationpart1 AT kendalldvanhorne themetascienceofadultstatisticalwordsegmentationpart1 AT julianividal themetascienceofadultstatisticalwordsegmentationpart1 AT joshuakhartshorne metascienceofadultstatisticalwordsegmentationpart1 AT laurenskorb metascienceofadultstatisticalwordsegmentationpart1 AT svenldietz metascienceofadultstatisticalwordsegmentationpart1 AT caitlinrgarcia metascienceofadultstatisticalwordsegmentationpart1 AT ginaliozzo metascienceofadultstatisticalwordsegmentationpart1 AT katieelamirato metascienceofadultstatisticalwordsegmentationpart1 AT jamesrledoux metascienceofadultstatisticalwordsegmentationpart1 AT jessemu metascienceofadultstatisticalwordsegmentationpart1 AT karanmurdock metascienceofadultstatisticalwordsegmentationpart1 AT jonravid metascienceofadultstatisticalwordsegmentationpart1 AT alyssaasavery metascienceofadultstatisticalwordsegmentationpart1 AT jamesespizzirro metascienceofadultstatisticalwordsegmentationpart1 AT kendalldvanhorne metascienceofadultstatisticalwordsegmentationpart1 AT julianividal metascienceofadultstatisticalwordsegmentationpart1 |