PONE-D-23-39912The effect of cue length and position on noticing and learning of determiner-noun agreement pairings: Evidence from a cue-balanced artificial vocabulary learning taskPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Walter,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

Thank you for submitting your valuable work.

The reviews, which are insightful and interesting, pointed to some unexplained aspects. The authors will notice the reviewers found merits in your study, but also raised several important concerns.

By my own reading, the manuscript still needs a lot of refinement, mostly related to soundness, conciseness and the control of confounding factors. Although this may sound counterintuitive, I am keen to understand authors' claims and keen on reading a refined manuscript.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 03 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Thiago P. Fernandes, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

2. Your abstract cannot contain citations. Please only include citations in the body text of the manuscript, and ensure that they remain in ascending numerical order on first mention.

3. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well. 

4. We note that you have referenced (ie. Hamrick, P. (2013)) which has currently not yet been accepted for publication. Please remove this from your References and amend this to state in the body of your manuscript: (ie “Hamrick, P. (2013)[Unpublished]”) as detailed online in our guide for authors

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-reference-style 

5. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-infor

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The paper presents a detailed study on the impact of cue properties in language learning.

The abstract provides a clear account of the paper, however the abstract's inclusion of specific references somewhat deviates from the ideal format of an abstract. While it is important to acknowledge foundational theories and prior research, detailed citations within an abstract can detract from its standalone comprehensibility.

Therefore, a more effective approach would be to summarize the key context and findings without direct references, ensuring that the abstract remains clear and self-sufficient for readers who may not have immediate access to the cited works or the full paper.

The Introduction and Literature Review sections are well-researched and provide a solid background. However, they might be too detailed, potentially overwhelming the reader with information. A more focused discussion on relevant studies directly linked to the research questions could improve readability.

The discussion on "Materials" (fourth paragraph onwards) (Page 12) seems to be repetitive considering the following section on "Procedure" (pages 13, 14, and 15).

The results of the study are presented with appropriate statistical analyses. However, there is an opportunity to make this section more accessible by simplifying the presentation of statistical data and by using visual aids.

In the Conclusion section, the practical implications of these findings could be highlighted more explicitly.

Additionally, please rectify the use of both first-person singular ("I") (Page 27) and first-person plural ("we") pronouns.

Also, I would like to alert the authors of some minor proof-reading errors that need to be corrected (example: post-test vs. posttest) and the use of serial comma.

Reviewer #2: Comments to the authors

Overall comments

The study presents an important investigation into the effects of cue length and position on learning and noticing in an artificial vocabulary task. While the data and commitment to open science are commendable, there are significant concerns. The lack of clarity in the data and R code on OSF, the choice of statistical models, and the insufficient explanation of how ‘noticing’ was identified and measured detract from the study’s impact. These major issues, alongside minor points like ambiguous terminology and potential oversights in the English agreement system, require careful revision. Addressing these points is crucial for enhancing the study’s clarity, analytical rigor, and contribution to the field.

Major issues

The data and R code on OSF

I am greatly appreciative that the authors follow the philosophy of open science and make all the materials available on OSF. I was particularly interested in the data and the R code used in the main analysis. I checked the OSF and there were various Excel files and two .R files that seem to be used for the data analysis. I just assumed that the files under "Revised data and R code for resubmit" are the ones reported in the current manuscript. I opened the "Cue Position Length data.xlsx" file. However, there are multiple sheets in it and I had to guess which sheet was used for the analysis. (It was actually easy for the first data set because the R code says "CueData <- as.data.frame(Cue_Position_Length_data)" but the second set is "novel test data"?).

In my opinion, there should be a CSV file that is loaded into R using "read.csv()" or "read_csv()". In this way, researchers who would like to replicate the analysis can easily identify which file should be used. It would also be beneficial for the community if the authors explain what each column represents and what they do in R, as well as demonstrating the necessary packages not only in the manuscript but also with the appropriate R code. The R code does not include any comments. I strongly recommend the authors put all the code into an R Markdown file and add plain text that explains the variables and steps the authors took. In short, just uploading the code and data is not enough to "reproduce all the analyses" (p. 16). For example, I found that "model 2b" reported in the manuscript does not appear in the "CueData.R" file, along with some other inconsistencies between the R code and the reported results. The authors should therefore review the analysis again and resolve any inconsistencies to improve the reliability of the data analysis.

GLMM vs. GLM

I am curious about the authors' choice to use a generalized linear model (GLM) instead of a generalized linear mixed-effect model (GLMM), which includes random effects. In my reanalysis of the data with GLMM using the “glmer()” function in the lme4 package, I found that GLMM provided a better fit than GLM. For more details on this analysis, please refer to the “replication-of-the-analysis.html” document. This additional perspective could potentially offer more insights and strengthen the overall analysis.

The identification of noticing

On page 17, where the authors discuss measuring participants' "noticing" through debrief questions, their methodology lacks a detailed explanation. I recommend that the authors provide a more thorough account of how they identified and differentiated levels of noticing. This explanation is crucial for understanding the measurement process and ensuring the validity of the findings related to participants' awareness and learning during the study.

Minor issues

On page 17 “models for main and mixed effects of cue Position and Length, in addition to Translation

Accuracy and Noticing scores.”

In my observation, the equations and R codes provided do not align with mixed-effects models as typically understood in statistical analysis. "Mixed effects" generally refers to models that include both fixed and random effects, capturing both population-level and individual variation. If the authors use the term "mixed effects" to mean "interactions" in a generalized linear model (GLM), this would be a deviation from the standard usage. It is important for the authors to clarify what they mean by "mixed effects" in this context to ensure the accuracy and clarity of their statistical approach.

On page 23 “The application of these findings is also important to discuss here.”

The term "[T]he application" is somewhat ambiguous. Based on my understanding, the authors' intention here seems to be "pedagogical implication." Therefore, I suggest using "pedagogical implication" instead of "the application." This change will help readers quickly grasp what the paragraph is about, ensuring clarity and enhancing the manuscript's readability.

On page 24 “the only agreement pattern that English speakers do use between determiners and

nouns is deciding between a/an,”

"[T]he only agreement pattern that English speakers do use between determiners and nouns is deciding between a/an" is a bit ambiguous. It could be interpreted to mean that "a/an" is the only form of agreement used in English, overlooking other forms of agreement like number agreement (as with "this/these" and "that/those") and usage based on countability (as with "some" for countable and uncountable nouns).

On page 24 “attempt overcome”

attempt to overcome?

Reviewer #3: The current study proposes that investigate the role of cue-internal factors – specifically position and length of cues - on noticing cues and learning determiner-noun agreement pairing. Though overall interesting, I believe the theoretical basis for this study is not clearly described and the study’s results could be better situated within the existing literature. I also find the lack of contr

The effect of cue length and position on noticing and learning of determiner agreement pairings: Evidence from a cue-balanced artificial vocabulary learning task

PONE-D-23-39912R1

Dear Dr. Walter,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Thiago P. Fernandes, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Thank you for your careful edits.

Wishing you success with the study

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I have read the revised version of the manuscript. The manuscript revision has addressed the points that were raised during the revision process.

Reviewer #2: I would like to express my sincere appreciation for the thorough and considerate response to the comments and suggestions made during this round of review.

Particularly, I am impressed with the efforts the authors have made to rerun the analysis and refine the R code as recommended. It is evident that a significant amount of work and dedication went into addressing the concerns raised, which has undoubtedly enhanced the quality and robustness of the study. The authors' commitment to rigorous scientific inquiry and openness to constructive feedback is commendable.

The modifications and additions the authors have made not only address the initial concerns but also significantly contribute to the clarity and depth of the research presented. It is clear that the revisions have strengthened the manuscript, making it a valuable contribution to the field.

Once again, I appreciate the authors' dedication to improving the manuscript based on the feedback provided.

Reviewer #3: I only have a few very minor comments:

p.5 often “affects”

p. 12 Instead of “a second langauge that was not English” it might be clearer to write “ a third language”

p.32 & 33 – I suppose this is a stylistic choice, but it seems strange to switch into present tense for the Results section.

p. 35 – I think the first paragraph should start with “The”.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Dr. Princy Pappachan

Reviewer #2: Yes: Yu Tamura

Reviewer #3: No

**********