This meta-analysis was conducted using the method of Neyeloff, Fuchs & Moreira (2012). The Excel spreadsheet has been adapted for 'live' computation of results from past bouba/kiki studies that included *canonical* stimuli. The full report of this meta-analysis, including the decision pathway, and the stimuli included in the Canonical studies can be found in the Open Access article, Styles SJ & Gawne L (2017 - in press).
With this spreadsheet you can:
• Rerun/Check our existing analyses for accuracy
• Replace our Comparison data-sets with your own to see how your new data compare with the published record of canonical effects
• Generate clear Forest Plots showing the degree of overlap/difference between your data sets and the previously published record
• Update the meta-analysis as new datasets become publically available
• Adapt the spreadsheet for other meta-analytic functions.
HOW TO.
1. Download the excel to see the ForestPlot
2. In the first tab (Calculate), replace the names of our Comparison data sets with your own. Update the Events, the N and the Rate, following the notes in the sheet.
3. According to the structure of the data, you may have measureable SEs or you may need to calculate them from Events and N. Enter the data or copy the formula from higher in the same column accordingly.
4. All other values should automatically calculate, and your data should appear in the other fields, and in the second tab (Forest Plot). Check the Forect Plot is displaying correctly
5. If adding extra rows, you will need to link cells between the two sheets, and check the row ranges for the figure.
6. Adapt other details as required
The CC-BY license allows you to use/adapt this material freely, so long as you cite/quote/credit the creators (Styles & Gawne, 2017)
References:
Neyeloff JL, Fuchs SC, & Moreira, LB (2012). Meta-analyses and Forest plots using a microsoft excel spreadsheet: step-by-step guide focusing on descriptive data analysis. BMC Research Notes, 5(52), 1-6.
Styles, S. J., & Gawne, L. (2017). When does maluma/takete fail? Two key failures and a meta-analysis suggest that phonology and phonotactics matter. i-Perception, 8(4), 1-17. doi: 10.1177/2041669517724807
