Refine
Has Fulltext
- no (2)
Document Type
- Article (1)
- Working Paper (1)
Language
- English (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (2)
Keywords
- Animacy (1)
- Attention (1)
- EEG/ERP (1)
- Infant (1)
- Nc (1)
- conomics (1)
- open science (1)
- political science (1)
- replication (1)
- reproduction (1)
Institute
Simple geometric shapes moving in a self-propelled manner, and violating Newtonian laws of motion by acting against gravitational forces tend to induce a judgement that an object is animate. Objects that change their motion only due to external causes are more likely judged as inanimate. How the developing brain is employed in the perception of animacy in early ontogeny is currently unknown. The aim of this study was to use ERP techniques to determine if the negative central component (Nc), a waveform related to attention allocation, was differentially affected when an infant observed animate or inanimate motion. Short animated movies comprising a marble moving along a marble run either in an animate or an inanimate manner were presented to 15 infants who were 9 months of age. The ERPs were time-locked to a still frame representing animate or inanimate motion that was displayed following each movie. We found that 9-month-olds are able to discriminate between animate and inanimate motion based on motion cues alone and most likely allocate more attentional resources to the inanimate motion. The present data contribute to our understanding of the animate-inanimate distinction and the Nc as a correlate of infant cognitive processing.
This study pushes our understanding of research reliability by reproducing and replicating claims from 110 papers in leading economic and political science journals. The analysis involves computational reproducibility checks and robustness assessments. It reveals several patterns. First, we uncover a high rate of fully computationally reproducible results (over 85%). Second, excluding minor issues like missing packages or broken pathways, we uncover coding errors for about 25% of studies, with some studies containing multiple errors. Third, we test the robustness of the results to 5,511 re-analyses. We find a robustness reproducibility of about 70%. Robustness reproducibility rates are relatively higher for re-analyses that introduce new data and lower for re-analyses that change the sample or the definition of the dependent variable. Fourth, 52% of re-analysis effect size estimates are smaller than the original published estimates and the average statistical significance of a re-analysis is 77% of the original. Lastly, we rely on six teams of researchers working independently to answer eight additional research questions on the determinants of robustness reproducibility. Most teams find a negative relationship between replicators' experience and reproducibility, while finding no relationship between reproducibility and the provision of intermediate or even raw data combined with the necessary cleaning codes.