Replication of Study 2 by James et al. (2021, JEP:LMC)
Project Repo: https://github.com/psych251/james2021.git
Original Paper: https://github.com/psych251/james2021/blob/f321f4e5839f4ffe743184268abcec2df0c944cf/original_paper/james21.pdf
Introduction
Justification for Choice of Experiment
I chose this experiment because it examines how prior lexical knowledge influences vocabulary acquisition under incidental learning conditions, which aligns closely with my research interests in language learning and memory integration. Most models of word learning emphasize explicit instruction, yet the majority of real-world vocabulary acquisition occurs incidentally through narrative and social contexts. I am particularly interested in how prior knowledge interacts with consolidation processes to shape long-term lexical representations—a question that sits at the intersection of language acquisition and memory systems research. Replicating this experiment offers an opportunity to examine whether the memory and language mechanisms observed in controlled learning settings extend to more naturalistic, story-based contexts that mirror how vocabulary is acquired in everyday life.
Description of Stimuli, Procedures, and Anticipated Challenges
The experiment presents 15 bisyllabic pseudowords embedded within an illustrated, spoken story (“Trouble at the Intergalactic Zoo”). Each pseudoword belongs to one of three phonological neighborhood conditions:
- No neighbors (e.g., femod)
- One neighbor (e.g., tabric ↔︎ fabric)
- Many neighbors (e.g., dester ↔︎ duster, pester)
Each pseudoword appears five times across the narrative. The story is paired with 15 corresponding cartoon scenes, each containing multiple pseudoword referents to maintain narrative coherence while preventing explicit word–object pairing. This design ensures incidental exposure rather than deliberate memorization.
Participants listen to the 7-minute story while viewing illustrations, then complete three types of memory tests:
- Stem completion – recall of word-forms from initial CV cues
- Form recognition – distinguishing target pseudowords from minimal phonological foils
- Form–picture recognition – mapping pseudowords to their illustrated referents
Each test is administered immediately after learning, the next day, and one week later to assess consolidation effects.
Challenges in Replication
- Stimulus control: Ensuring balanced pseudoword properties (phoneme/letter length, bigram probability, neighborhood frequency) and matching the auditory timing of exposures. (Would like to figure out how to check this)
- Incidental exposure fidelity: Participants must attend to the story without adopting explicit memorization strategies, especially in adult online samples.
- Retention and engagement: Maintaining consistent participation across multiple testing sessions, particularly for the delayed tests.
Methods
Power Analysis
Original effect size, power analysis for samples to achieve 80%, 90%, 95% power to detect that effect size. Considerations of feasibility for selecting planned sample size.
Planned Sample
- 125 adults
- Age 18-35 years old
- Native monolingual British English speakers residing in the UK (will most likely change this to US English speakers residing in the US)
- No reported visual, hearing, or literacy difficulties
- Had not participated in experiment S1
- Have working microphone that was compatible with the experiment platform
- Prolific participants that had participated in at least ten studies with minimum 95% approval rate
- Must not self-report inappropriate strategy (i.e., writing the words down)
- Must complete vocabulary test properly
Materials
All materials - can quote directly from original article - just put the text in quotations and note that this was followed precisely. Or, quote directly and just point out exceptions to what was described in the original article.
Procedure
Can quote directly from original article - just put the text in quotations and note that this was followed precisely. Or, quote directly and just point out exceptions to what was described in the original article.
Three Testing Days:
- Session 1 / Day 1: ~20 minutes
- Session 2 / Day 2: ~5 minutes
- Session 3 / Day 7: ~10–15 minutes
Analysis Plan
Can also quote directly, though it is less often spelled out effectively for an analysis strategy section. The key is to report an analysis strategy that is as close to the original - data cleaning rules, data exclusion rules, covariates, etc. - as possible.
Clarify key analysis of interest here You can also pre-specify additional analyses you plan to do.
Differences from Original Study
Explicitly describe known differences in sample, setting, procedure, and analysis plan from original study. The goal, of course, is to minimize those differences, but differences will inevitably occur. Also, note whether such differences are anticipated to make a difference based on claims in the original article or subsequent published research on the conditions for obtaining the effect.
Methods Addendum (Post Data Collection)
You can comment this section out prior to final report with data collection.
Actual Sample
Sample size, demographics, data exclusions based on rules spelled out in analysis plan
Differences from pre-data collection methods plan
Any differences from what was described as the original plan, or “none”.
Results
Data preparation
Data preparation following the analysis plan.
Confirmatory analysis
The analyses as specified in the analysis plan.
Side-by-side graph with original graph is ideal here
Exploratory analyses
Any follow-up analyses desired (not required).
Discussion
Summary of Replication Attempt
Open the discussion section with a paragraph summarizing the primary result from the confirmatory analysis and the assessment of whether it replicated, partially replicated, or failed to replicate the original result.
Commentary
Add open-ended commentary (if any) reflecting (a) insights from follow-up exploratory analysis, (b) assessment of the meaning of the replication (or not) - e.g., for a failure to replicate, are the differences between original and present study ones that definitely, plausibly, or are unlikely to have been moderators of the result, and (c) discussion of any objections or challenges raised by the current and original authors about the replication attempt. None of these need to be long.