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

%S-4

\section{Analytical Reproducibility}\label{ReX}

\section{Analytical Reproducibility}\label{ReX}

...

@@ -206,7 +206,7 @@ We could thus reproduce the main results of the original paper, showing a positi

...

@@ -206,7 +206,7 @@ We could thus reproduce the main results of the original paper, showing a positi

\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}