Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34754813›Full record

ArticleMethodsX2021

A new tool for equating lexical stimuli across experimental conditions.

Evan N Lintz, Phui Cheng Lim, Matthew R Johnson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in MethodsX, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Evan N LintzDepartment of Psychology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68588, USA.
Phui Cheng LimDepartment of Psychology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68588, USA.
Matthew R JohnsonDepartment of Psychology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68588, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In cognitive psychology and psycholinguistics, lexical characteristics can drive large effects, which can create confounds when word stimuli are intended to be unrelated to the effect of interest. Thus, it is critical to control for these potential confounds. As an alternative to randomly assigning word bank items to stimulus lists, we present LIBRA (Lexical Item Balancing & Resampling Algorithm), a MATLAB-based toolbox for quickly generating stimulus lists of user-determined length and number that can be closely equated on any number of lexical properties. The toolbox comprises two scripts: a genetic algorithm that performs the inter-list balancing, and a tool for filtering/trimming long omnibus word lists based on simple criteria, prior to balancing. Relying on randomized procedures often results in substantially unbalanced experimental conditions, but our method guarantees that the lists used for each experimental condition contain no meaningful differences. Thus, the lexical characteristics of the specific words used will add an absolute minimum of bias/noise to the experiment in which they are applied.•Our toolbox balances word lists for arbitrary lexical properties to control confounds in cognitive psychology research.•Our toolbox performs more efficiently than pure randomization or balancing manually.•A graphical user interface is provided for ease of use.

Indexed as

Cognitive psychologyEnglish Lexicon ProjectGenetic algorithmLexicalWordlist

Identifiers

PMID34754813
PMCPMC8563689

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.