日本語
 
Help Privacy Policy ポリシー/免責事項
  詳細検索ブラウズ

アイテム詳細


公開

学術論文

Sequential Bayes Factor designs in developmental research: Studies on early word learning

MPS-Authors
/persons/resource/persons243427

Schreiner,  Melanie S.
Psychology of Language Department, Georg August University, Göttingen, Germany;
Leibniz-ScienceCampus Primate Cognition, Göttingen, Germany;
Clinic for Cognitive Neurology, University of Leipzig, Germany;
Department Neurology, MPI for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Max Planck Society;

External Resource
There are no locators available
Fulltext (restricted access)
There are currently no full texts shared for your IP range.
フルテキスト (公開)
公開されているフルテキストはありません
付随資料 (公開)
There is no public supplementary material available
引用

Mani, N., Schreiner, M. S., Brase, J., Köhler, K., Strassen, K., Postin, D., & Schultze, T. (2021). Sequential Bayes Factor designs in developmental research: Studies on early word learning. Developmental Science, 24(4):. doi:10.1111/desc.13097.


引用: https://hdl.handle.net/21.11116/0000-0008-2EB4-A
要旨
Developmental research, like many fields, is plagued by low sample sizes and inconclusive findings. The problem is amplified by the difficulties associated with recruiting infant participants for research as well as the increased variability in infant responses. With sequential testing designs providing a viable alternative to paradigms facing such issues, the current study implemented a Sequential Bayes Factor (SBF) design on three findings in the developmental literature. In particular, using the framework described by Schönbrödt and colleagues (2017), we examined infants’ sensitivity to mispronunciations of familiar words, their learning of novel word‐object associations from cross‐situational learning paradigms, and their assumption of mutual exclusivity in assigning novel labels to novel objects. We tested an initial sample of 20 participants in each study, incrementally increasing sample size by one and computing a Bayes Factor with each additional participant. In one study, we were able to obtain moderate evidence for the alternate hypotheses despite testing less than half the number of participants as in the original study. We did not replicate the findings of the cross‐situational learning study. Indeed, the data were five times more likely under the null hypothesis, allowing us to conclude that infants did not recognize the trained word‐object associations presented in the task. We discuss these findings in light of the advantages and disadvantages of using a SBF design in developmental research while also providing researchers with an account of how we implemented this design across multiple studies.