@article{NicenboimVasishthEngelmannetal.2018,
  author    = {Nicenboim, Bruno and Vasishth, Shravan and Engelmann, Felix and Suckow, Katja},
  title     = {Exploratory and confirmatory analyses in sentence processing},
  series = {Cognitive science : a multidisciplinary journal of anthropology, artificial intelligence, education, linguistics, neuroscience, philosophy, psychology ; journal of the Cognitive Science Society},
  volume    = {42},
  journal   = {Cognitive science : a multidisciplinary journal of anthropology, artificial intelligence, education, linguistics, neuroscience, philosophy, psychology ; journal of the Cognitive Science Society},
  publisher = {Wiley},
  address   = {Hoboken},
  issn      = {0364-0213},
  doi       = {10.1111/cogs.12589},
  pages     = {1075 -- 1100},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {Given the replication crisis in cognitive science, it is important to consider what researchers need to do in order to report results that are reliable. We consider three changes in current practice that have the potential to deliver more realistic and robust claims. First, the planned experiment should be divided into two stages, an exploratory stage and a confirmatory stage. This clear separation allows the researcher to check whether any results found in the exploratory stage are robust. The second change is to carry out adequately powered studies. We show that this is imperative if we want to obtain realistic estimates of effects in psycholinguistics. The third change is to use Bayesian data-analytic methods rather than frequentist ones; the Bayesian framework allows us to focus on the best estimates we can obtain of the effect, rather than rejecting a strawman null. As a case study, we investigate number interference effects in German. Number feature interference is predicted by cue-based retrieval models of sentence processing (Van Dyke \& Lewis, 2003; Vasishth \& Lewis, 2006), but it has shown inconsistent results. We show that by implementing the three changes mentioned, suggestive evidence emerges that is consistent with the predicted number interference effects.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{NicenboimRoettgerVasishth2018,
  author    = {Nicenboim, Bruno and Roettger, Timo B. and Vasishth, Shravan},
  title     = {Using meta-analysis for evidence synthesis},
  series = {Journal of phonetics},
  volume    = {70},
  journal   = {Journal of phonetics},
  publisher = {Elsevier},
  address   = {London},
  issn      = {0095-4470},
  doi       = {10.1016/j.wocn.2018.06.001},
  pages     = {39 -- 55},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {Within quantitative phonetics, it is common practice to draw conclusions based on statistical significance alone Using incomplete neutralization of final devoicing in German as a case study, we illustrate the problems with this approach. If researchers find a significant acoustic difference between voiceless and devoiced obstruents, they conclude that neutralization is incomplete, and if they find no significant difference, they conclude that neutralization is complete. However, such strong claims regarding the existence or absence of an effect based on significant results alone can be misleading. Instead, the totality of available evidence should be brought to bear on the question. Towards this end, we synthesize the evidence from 14 studies on incomplete neutralization in German using a Bayesian random-effects meta-analysis. Our meta-analysis provides evidence in favor of incomplete neutralization. We conclude with some suggestions for improving the quality of future research on phonetic phenomena: ensure that sample sizes allow for high-precision estimates of the effect; avoid the temptation to deploy researcher degrees of freedom when analyzing data; focus on estimates of the parameter of interest and the uncertainty about that parameter; attempt to replicate effects found; and, whenever possible, make both the data and analysis available publicly. (c) 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{NicenboimLogacevGatteietal.2016,
  author    = {Nicenboim, Bruno and Logacev, Pavel and Gattei, Carolina and Vasishth, Shravan},
  title     = {When High-Capacity Readers Slow Down and Low-Capacity Readers Speed Up},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-90663},
  pages     = {1 -- 24},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {We examined the effects of argument-head distance in SVO and SOV languages (Spanish and German), while taking into account readers' working memory capacity and controlling for expectation (Levy, 2008) and other factors. We predicted only locality effects, that is, a slowdown produced by increased dependency distance (Gibson, 2000; Lewis and Vasishth, 2005). Furthermore, we expected stronger locality effects for readers with low working memory capacity. Contrary to our predictions, low-capacity readers showed faster reading with increased distance, while high-capacity readers showed locality effects. We suggest that while the locality effects are compatible with memory-based explanations, the speedup of low-capacity readers can be explained by an increased probability of retrieval failure. We present a computational model based on ACT-R built under the previous assumptions, which is able to give a qualitative account for the present data and can be tested in future research. Our results suggest that in some cases, interpreting longer RTs as indexing increased processing difficulty and shorter RTs as facilitation may be too simplistic: The same increase in processing difficulty may lead to slowdowns in high-capacity readers and speedups in low-capacity ones. Ignoring individual level capacity differences when investigating locality effects may lead to misleading conclusions.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{NicenboimLogacevGatteietal.2016,
  author    = {Nicenboim, Bruno and Logacev, Pavel and Gattei, Carolina and Vasishth, Shravan},
  title     = {When High-Capacity Readers Slow Down and Low-Capacity Readers Speed Up},
  series = {Frontiers in psychology},
  volume    = {7},
  journal   = {Frontiers in psychology},
  publisher = {Frontiers Research Foundation},
  address   = {Lausanne},
  issn      = {1664-1078},
  doi       = {10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00280},
  pages     = {1 -- 24},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {We examined the effects of argument-head distance in SVO and SOV languages (Spanish and German), while taking into account readers' working memory capacity and controlling for expectation (Levy, 2008) and other factors. We predicted only locality effects, that is, a slowdown produced by increased dependency distance (Gibson, 2000; Lewis and Vasishth, 2005). Furthermore, we expected stronger locality effects for readers with low working memory capacity. Contrary to our predictions, low-capacity readers showed faster reading with increased distance, while high-capacity readers showed locality effects. We suggest that while the locality effects are compatible with memory-based explanations, the speedup of low-capacity readers can be explained by an increased probability of retrieval failure. We present a computational model based on ACT-R built under the previous assumptions, which is able to give a qualitative account for the present data and can be tested in future research. Our results suggest that in some cases, interpreting longer RTs as indexing increased processing difficulty and shorter RTs as facilitation may be too simplistic: The same increase in processing difficulty may lead to slowdowns in high-capacity readers and speedups in low-capacity ones. Ignoring individual level capacity differences when investigating locality effects may lead to misleading conclusions.},
  language  = {en}
}