Differences Between Filtered and Unfiltered Samples in Our Analyses
| Study . | n (Unfiltered) . | n (Filtered) . | Sample reduction . | Analysis . | Phase . | Difference . | Details . |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 72 (36M, 36B) | 43 (21M, 22B) | 40% | ANOVA | Training | yes | The unfiltered sample, but not the filtered sample, showed a group difference with monolinguals outperforming bilinguals. |
| Test | no | ||||||
| LMEM | Training | no | |||||
| Test | no | ||||||
| 2a | 102 (51M, 51B) | 53 (29M, 24B) | 48% | LMEM | Training | no | |
| Test | no | ||||||
| 2b | 70 (40M, 30B) | 41 (25M, 16B) | 41% | LMEM | Training | no | |
| Test | yes | In the unfiltered sample only, the odds of bilinguals correctly anticipating increased less over the course of the baseline trial than the odds of monolinguals, but this difference was mediated to some extent by a significant three-way bilingual–trial number–time bin interaction. Thus, the odds of bilinguals correctly anticipating in later time bins increased as trial number increased from the baseline trial. | |||||
| 2c | 67 (38M, 29B) | 44 (25M, 19B) | 34% | LMEM | Training | no | |
| Test | no | ||||||
| 3 | 72 (34M, 38B) | 41 (22M, 19B) | 43% | ANOVA | Training | no | |
| Test | yes | At Test, the effect of language group was no longer significant in the unfiltered sample. | |||||
| LMEM | Training | yes | In the unfiltered sample, the trial number–time bin interaction changed from nonsignificant to decreasing odds for monolinguals. | ||||
| Test | yes | Results from the unfiltered dataset were somewhat different: the only significant effect related to language group was its three-way interaction with trial number and time bin. |
| Study . | n (Unfiltered) . | n (Filtered) . | Sample reduction . | Analysis . | Phase . | Difference . | Details . |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 72 (36M, 36B) | 43 (21M, 22B) | 40% | ANOVA | Training | yes | The unfiltered sample, but not the filtered sample, showed a group difference with monolinguals outperforming bilinguals. |
| Test | no | ||||||
| LMEM | Training | no | |||||
| Test | no | ||||||
| 2a | 102 (51M, 51B) | 53 (29M, 24B) | 48% | LMEM | Training | no | |
| Test | no | ||||||
| 2b | 70 (40M, 30B) | 41 (25M, 16B) | 41% | LMEM | Training | no | |
| Test | yes | In the unfiltered sample only, the odds of bilinguals correctly anticipating increased less over the course of the baseline trial than the odds of monolinguals, but this difference was mediated to some extent by a significant three-way bilingual–trial number–time bin interaction. Thus, the odds of bilinguals correctly anticipating in later time bins increased as trial number increased from the baseline trial. | |||||
| 2c | 67 (38M, 29B) | 44 (25M, 19B) | 34% | LMEM | Training | no | |
| Test | no | ||||||
| 3 | 72 (34M, 38B) | 41 (22M, 19B) | 43% | ANOVA | Training | no | |
| Test | yes | At Test, the effect of language group was no longer significant in the unfiltered sample. | |||||
| LMEM | Training | yes | In the unfiltered sample, the trial number–time bin interaction changed from nonsignificant to decreasing odds for monolinguals. | ||||
| Test | yes | Results from the unfiltered dataset were somewhat different: the only significant effect related to language group was its three-way interaction with trial number and time bin. |
Note. M denotes monolinguals; B denotes bilinguals. LMEM = logistic mixed-effects model; ANOVA = analysis of variance.