@misc{VasishthMertzenJaegeretal.2018, author = {Vasishth, Shravan and Mertzen, Daniela and J{\"a}ger, Lena Ann and Gelman, Andrew}, title = {Corrigendum to: Shravan Vasishth, Daniela Mertzen, Lena A. J{\"a}ger, Andrew Gelman; The statistical significance filter leads to overoptimistic expectations of replicability. - Journal of Memory and Language. - 103 (2018), pg. 151 - 175}, series = {Journal of memory and language}, volume = {104}, journal = {Journal of memory and language}, publisher = {Elsevier}, address = {San Diego}, issn = {0749-596X}, doi = {10.1016/j.jml.2018.09.004}, pages = {128 -- 128}, year = {2018}, language = {en} } @article{VasishthMertzenJaegeretal.2018, author = {Vasishth, Shravan and Mertzen, Daniela and Jaeger, Lena A. and Gelman, Andrew}, title = {The statistical significance filter leads to overoptimistic expectations of replicability}, series = {Journal of memory and language}, volume = {103}, journal = {Journal of memory and language}, publisher = {Elsevier}, address = {San Diego}, issn = {0749-596X}, doi = {10.1016/j.jml.2018.07.004}, pages = {151 -- 175}, year = {2018}, abstract = {It is well-known in statistics (e.g., Gelman \& Carlin, 2014) that treating a result as publishable just because the p-value is less than 0.05 leads to overoptimistic expectations of replicability. These effects get published, leading to an overconfident belief in replicability. We demonstrate the adverse consequences of this statistical significance filter by conducting seven direct replication attempts (268 participants in total) of a recent paper (Levy \& Keller, 2013). We show that the published claims are so noisy that even non-significant results are fully compatible with them. We also demonstrate the contrast between such small-sample studies and a larger-sample study; the latter generally yields a less noisy estimate but also a smaller effect magnitude, which looks less compelling but is more realistic. We reiterate several suggestions from the methodology literature for improving current practices.}, language = {en} } @article{MertzenLagoVasishth2021, author = {Mertzen, Daniela and Lago, Sol and Vasishth, Shravan}, title = {The benefits of preregistration for hypothesis-driven bilingualism research}, series = {Bilingualism : language and cognition}, volume = {24}, journal = {Bilingualism : language and cognition}, number = {5}, publisher = {Cambridge Univ. Press}, address = {Cambridge}, issn = {1366-7289}, doi = {10.1017/S1366728921000031}, pages = {807 -- 812}, year = {2021}, abstract = {Preregistration is an open science practice that requires the specification of research hypotheses and analysis plans before the data are inspected. Here, we discuss the benefits of preregistration for hypothesis-driven, confirmatory bilingualism research. Using examples from psycholinguistics and bilingualism, we illustrate how non-peer reviewed preregistrations can serve to implement a clean distinction between hypothesis testing and data exploration. This distinction helps researchers avoid casting post-hoc hypotheses and analyses as confirmatory ones. We argue that, in keeping with current best practices in the experimental sciences, preregistration, along with sharing data and code, should be an integral part of hypothesis-driven bilingualism research.}, language = {en} } @phdthesis{Mertzen2022, author = {Mertzen, Daniela}, title = {A cross-linguistic investigation of similarity-based interference in sentence comprehension}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-55668}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-556685}, school = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam}, pages = {xvii, 129}, year = {2022}, abstract = {The aim of this dissertation was to conduct a larger-scale cross-linguistic empirical investigation of similarity-based interference effects in sentence comprehension. Interference studies can offer valuable insights into the mechanisms that are involved in long-distance dependency completion. Many studies have investigated similarity-based interference effects, showing that syntactic and semantic information are employed during long-distance dependency formation (e.g., Arnett \& Wagers, 2017; Cunnings \& Sturt, 2018; Van Dyke, 2007, Van Dyke \& Lewis, 2003; Van Dyke \& McElree, 2011). Nevertheless, there are some important open questions in the interference literature that are critical to our understanding of the constraints involved in dependency resolution. The first research question concerns the relative timing of syntactic and semantic interference in online sentence comprehension. Only few interference studies have investigated this question, and, to date, there is not enough data to draw conclusions with regard to their time course (Van Dyke, 2007; Van Dyke \& McElree, 2011). Our first cross-linguistic study explores the relative timing of syntactic and semantic interference in two eye-tracking reading experiments that implement the study design used in Van Dyke (2007). The first experiment tests English sentences. The second, larger-sample experiment investigates the two interference types in German. Overall, the data suggest that syntactic and semantic interference can arise simultaneously during retrieval. The second research question concerns a special case of semantic interference: We investigate whether cue-based retrieval interference can be caused by semantically similar items which are not embedded in a syntactic structure. This second interference study builds on a landmark study by Van Dyke \& McElree (2006). The study design used in their study is unique in that it is able to pin down the source of interference as a consequence of cue overload during retrieval, when semantic retrieval cues do not uniquely match the retrieval target. Unlike most other interference studies, this design is able to rule out encoding interference as an alternative explanation. Encoding accounts postulate that it is not cue overload at the retrieval site but the erroneous encoding of similar linguistic items in memory that leads to interference (Lewandowsky et al., 2008; Oberauer \& Kliegl, 2006). While Van Dyke \& McElree (2006) reported cue-based retrieval interference from sentence-external distractors, the evidence for this effect was weak. A subsequent study did not show interference of this type (Van Dyke et al., 2014). Given these inconclusive findings, further research is necessary to investigate semantic cue-based retrieval interference. The second study in this dissertation provides a larger-scale cross-linguistic investigation of cue-based retrieval interference from sentence-external items. Three larger-sample eye-tracking studies in English, German, and Russian tested cue-based interference in the online processing of filler-gap dependencies. This study further extends the previous research by investigating interference in each language under varying task demands (Logačev \& Vasishth, 2016; Swets et al., 2008). Overall, we see some very modest support for proactive cue-based retrieval interference in English. Unexpectedly, this was observed only under a low task demand. In German and Russian, there is some evidence against the interference effect. It is possible that interference is attenuated in languages with richer case marking. In sum, the cross-linguistic experiments on the time course of syntactic and semantic interference from sentence-internal distractors support existing evidence of syntactic and semantic interference during sentence comprehension. Our data further show that both types of interference effects can arise simultaneously. Our cross-linguistic experiments investigating semantic cue-based retrieval interference from sentence-external distractors suggest that this type of interference may arise only in specific linguistic contexts.}, language = {en} } @article{JaegerMertzenVanDykeetal.2020, author = {J{\"a}ger, Lena Ann and Mertzen, Daniela and Van Dyke, Julie A. and Vasishth, Shravan}, title = {Interference patterns in subject-verb agreement and reflexives revisited}, series = {Journal of memory and language}, volume = {111}, journal = {Journal of memory and language}, publisher = {Elsevier}, address = {San Diego}, issn = {0749-596X}, doi = {10.1016/j.jml.2019.104063}, pages = {21}, year = {2020}, abstract = {Cue-based retrieval theories in sentence processing predict two classes of interference effect: (i) Inhibitory interference is predicted when multiple items match a retrieval cue: cue-overloading leads to an overall slowdown in reading time; and (ii) Facilitatory interference arises when a retrieval target as well as a distractor only partially match the retrieval cues; this partial matching leads to an overall speedup in retrieval time. Inhibitory interference effects are widely observed, but facilitatory interference apparently has an exception: reflexives have been claimed to show no facilitatory interference effects. Because the claim is based on underpowered studies, we conducted a large-sample experiment that investigated both facilitatory and inhibitory interference. In contrast to previous studies, we find facilitatory interference effects in reflexives. We also present a quantitative evaluation of the cue-based retrieval model of Engelmann, Jager, and Vasishth (2019).}, language = {en} }