Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34595672›Full record

ReviewBehavior research methods2022

LexFindR: A fast, simple, and extensible R package for finding similar words in a lexicon.

ZhaoBin Li, Anne Marie Crinnion, James S Magnuson

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Behavior research methods, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Lexical Predictors of Intelligibility in Young Children's Speech.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2023
    Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

ZhaoBin LiDepartment of Mathematics and Statistics, Carleton College, Northfield, MN, USA.
Anne Marie CrinnionInstitute for the Brain and Cognitive Sciences, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA.
James S MagnusonInstitute for the Brain and Cognitive Sciences, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA. james.magnuson@uconn.edu.

Funding

Training in the Cognitive Neuroscience of CommunicationT32DC017703 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT STORRS · PI Inge-Marie Eigsti, Emily B Myers · 2019 to 2026
$2.3M
NIDCD NIH HHS T32 DC017703
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Language scientists often need to generate lists of related words, such as potential competitors. They may do this for purposes of experimental control (e.g., selecting items matched on lexical neighborhood but varying in word frequency), or to test theoretical predictions (e.g., hypothesizing that a novel type of competitor may impact word recognition). Several online tools are available, but most are constrained to a fixed lexicon and fixed sets of competitor definitions, and may not give the user full access to or control of source data. We present LexFindR, an open-source R package that can be easily modified to include additional, novel competitor types. LexFindR is easy to use. Because it can leverage multiple CPU cores and uses vectorized code when possible, it is also extremely fast. In this article, we present an overview of LexFindR usage, illustrated with examples. We also explain the details of how we implemented several standard lexical competitor types used in spoken word recognition research (e.g., cohorts, neighbors, embeddings, rhymes), and show how "lexical dimensions" (e.g., word frequency, word length, uniqueness point) can be integrated into LexFindR workflows (for example, to calculate "frequency-weighted competitor probabilities"), for both spoken and visual word recognition research.

Indexed as

Speech PerceptionHumansLanguageLexiconPsycholinguisticsWord recognition

Identifiers

PMID34595672
PMCPMC12036059

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.