Commit fd888352 authored by Philipp Cimiano's avatar Philipp Cimiano

minor changes

parent a1f64432
......@@ -7,12 +7,12 @@
\chapterauthor[1]{Vidya Ayer}
\chapterauthor[1]{Christian Witte}
\chapterauthor[1]{Philipp Cimiano}
\chapterauthor[2]{Katharina Rohlfing}
\chapterauthor[2]{Katharina J. Rohlfing}
\chapterauthor[3]{Iris Nomikou}
\begin{affils}
\chapteraffil[1]{Semantic Computing Group Faculty of Technology \& Cognitive Interaction Technology Excellence Center (CITEC), Bielefeld University}
\chapteraffil[2]{Faculty of Psycholinguistics, Paderborn University}
\chapteraffil[2]{Psycholinguistics, Faculty of Arts and Technology, Paderborn University}
\chapteraffil[3]{Department of Psychology, University of Portsmouth}
\end{affils}
......@@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ During the creation and implementation of the scripts, both initially and in the
\subsection{Main Results} \label{mainresults_rohlfing}
%SS-3.3
Using the process detailed above, the scripts produced tables of variables ready for statistical analysis. A mixed, between, and within-subjects ANOVA was used with AGE (9 months vs. 10 months old) as the between-subjects variable, and TIME (before vs. after the word was spoken) as the within-subjects variable. There was a significant AGE x TIME interaction effect \begin{math} F(1, 46) = 5.687, p < .021, \nu2 = .107 \end{math}. Since an independent-samples t-test indicated significant differences between the 9 and 10 months olds, the data were treated in separate groups. Additionally, a linear regression was calculated with the increase in looking times at the target as the dependent variable and infants' age in days as an independent variable. The regression model did not attain significance, suggesting that the change in performance was not linear, \begin{math} F(1,46) = 2.23, p = 0.142 \end{math}.
Using the process detailed above, the scripts produced tables of variables ready for statistical analysis. A mixed, between, and within-subjects ANOVA was used with AGE (9 months vs. 10 months old) as the between-subjects variable, and TIME (before vs. after the word was spoken) as the within-subjects variable. There was a significant AGE x TIME interaction effect \begin{math} F(1, 46) = 5.687, p < .021, \eta = .107 \end{math}. Since an independent-samples t-test indicated significant differences between the 9 and 10 months olds, the data were treated in separate groups. Additionally, a linear regression was calculated with the increase in looking times at the target as the dependent variable and infants' age in days as an independent variable. The regression model did not attain significance, suggesting that the change in performance was not linear, \begin{math} F(1,46) = 2.23, p = 0.142 \end{math}.
%S-4
\section{Analytical Reproducibility} \label{ReX}
......@@ -206,7 +206,7 @@ We could thus reproduce the main results of the original paper, showing a positi
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.4\linewidth]{images/reproduced/fig_diff_10month.png}
\end{subfigure}%
\caption{Looking times in percentage at matching image before and after utterance for all eight verbs averaged over all subjects (10-month olds); Right: Difference in looking times (After-Before) for 10-month olds}
\caption{Left: Looking times in percentage at matching image before and after utterance for all eight verbs averaged over all subjects (10-month olds); Right: Difference in looking times (After-Before) for 10-month olds}
\label{looking_times_10}
\protect
\end{figure}
......
Markdown is supported
0% or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment