ArticleBehavior research methods2025
The UCI Phonotactic Calculator: An online tool for computing phonotactic metrics.
Article in Behavior research methods, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This paper presents the UCI Phonotactic Calculator (UCIPC), a new online tool for quantifying the occurrence of segments and segment sequences in a corpus. This tool has several advantages compared to existing tools: it allows users to supply their own training data, meaning it can be applied to any language for which a corpus is available; it computes a wider range of metrics than most existing tools; and it provides an accessible point-and-click interface that allows researchers with more modest technical backgrounds to take advantage of phonotactic models. After describing the metrics implemented by the calculator and how to use it, we present the results of a proof-of-concept study comparing how well different types of metrics implemented by the UCIPC predict human responses from eight published nonce word acceptability judgment studies across four different languages. These results suggest that metrics that take into account the relative position of sounds and include word boundaries are better at predicting human responses than those that are based on the absolute position of sounds and do not include word boundaries. We close by discussing the usefulness of tools like the UCIPC in experimental design and analysis and outline several areas of future research that this tool will help support.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.