This experiment was conducted to validate the stimuli of another experiment. The stimuli belonged to one of two languages: a German-like language or a German-unlike language. We conducted the current experiment to check (1) whether the German-like experimental words sounded more word-like in comparison to foils to native German speakers and (2) whether the German-unlike words sounded as word-like as foils to native German speakers. That is, participants were presented with two words in an auditory 2AFC task (one experimental word and one foil per trial), asking them to select the one sounding more word-like.
Click on Preview next to RUN THE ENTIRE EXPERIMENT below to run the complete session or select Preview next to one of the experiment's components to get an idea of the respective part:
(NB: In the paper, German-like = naturalistic, German-unlike = non-naturalistic.)
Built with Experiment
This is the overarching experiment tree calling all other questionnaires and tasks listed below. That is, this is the experiment as the participants saw it from start to finish: consent form, demographics questionnaire, headphone check, rejection screen (if applicable), main task (i.e., 2AFC wordiness test), debriefing screen.
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC)
Built with Questionnaire Builder 1
This is the informed consent form (in German), explaining what the experiment involves and what will happen to the participants' data.
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC)
Built with Questionnaire Builder 1
This is the demographics questionnaire (in German), asking for
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC)
Built with Task Builder 1
We translated Milne et al.'s (2021; https://app.gorilla.sc/openmaterials/100917) headphone check into German, adding a check to test whether autoplay was activated in participants' browsers, which was essential for our task.
In the task, participants were presented with three white noise sounds, of which one contained a faint tone (undetectable without headphones). Participants were asked to decide which of the three noises contained the tone and click on the respective key on their keyboard (1, 2, or 3). The efficacy of this screening task has been demonstrated by Milne et al. (2021; https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-020-01514-0).
While participants in Milne et al.'s headphone check were asked to click on one of three buttons to indicate in which noise the tone was hidden, participants in our headphone check were asked to click on the numbers 1, 2, or 3 on their keyboard. This was done to keep the instructions similar to those of our subsequent main task, the 2AFC wordiness test.
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC)
Built with Questionnaire Builder 1
This is the rejection screen, which participants saw who failed either the headphone check or the demographics questionnaire (by answering that German was not their native language or that they participated in the study before).
Participants who failed the headphone check could contact the experimenter to receive an individual link to rerun the experiment (since they had not started the main task yet).
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC)
Built with Task Builder 1
This is the main task of our study, testing whether the German-like experimental words of another study sounded indeed more German-like to German speakers while the German-unlike experimental words sounded as word-like as foils (i.e., whether the stimuli were valid). To test this, participants were presented with two pseudo words per trial (one experimental word and one foil each) and asked to decide which one sounded more word-like.
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC)
Built with Questionnaire Builder 1
This is the debriefing screen shown to participants who successfully completed the experiment, explaining what the goal of the study was.
Fully open! Access by URL and searchable from the Open Materials search page
