,,,,,,contrast,,,,
,"Amorapanth, P., Kranjec, A., Bromberger, B., Lehet, M., Widick, P., Woods, A. J., et al. (2012). Brain & Language. Brain and language, 120(3), 226Đ236. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2011.09.007","Post hoc analyses indicated that, as compared to the RHD group, the LHD participants had signifi- cantly more lesioned voxels [RHD: mean = 34076.8; LHD: mean = 77799.5; t(32) = 2.38, p < .05]
",-,,,,,,,
,"Cho, Y. W., Song, H.-J., Lee, J. J., Lee, J. H., Lee, H. J., Yi, S. D., et al. (2012). Brain & Language. Brain and language, 120(3), 372Đ380. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2011.12.013",-,+,,,,,,,
,"Welcome, S. E., & Joanisse, M. F. (2012). Brain & Language. Brain and language, 120(3), 360Đ371. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2011.12.011",+,-,,,,,,,
,"Temple, C. M., & Shephard, E. E. (2012). Brain & Language. Brain and language, 120(3), 345Đ359. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2011.12.001","There was no significant difference between the ages of the child TS participants and their control participants [F(1, 23) = 1.462, P = 0.24]
... The mean age of the TDA group was 21;4 (SD = 17 months), with an age range of 19;3Đ23;7. There was no significant difference between the ages of the A-TS group and the TDA group [F(1, 22) = 0.224, P = 0.64]. A between group, one-way ANOVA on the full scale IQ scores indicated that there was no sig- nificant difference between the A-TS and TDA groups [F(1, 22) = 0.127, P = 0.72.]. A between group, repeated measures ANOVA indicated no significant difference between the A-TS and TDA groups on the verbal and performance IQ sub-tests [F(1, 22) = 0.106, P = 0.75].

",-,,,,,,,
,"Ziegler, J. C., Pech-Georgel, C., George, F., & Foxton, J. M. (2012). Brain & Language. Brain and language, 120(3), 265Đ270. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2011.12.002",+,-,,,,,,,
,"Havas, V., Rodriguez-Fornells, A., & Clahsen, H. (2012). Brain & Language. Brain and language, 120(3), 332Đ344. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2011.10.008",+,"The existing adjectives used to construct the nonce items for conditions (i) and (ii) were matched in terms of their derived word form frequencies in the LEXESP database (Sebastian-Galles, Marti, Carreiras, & Cuetos, 2000). The mean fre- quencies (per million) were 3.00 for -ura and 4.36 for -ez(a) rhymes, a non-significant difference (t(31) = 1.39, p > 0.18). In addition, the non-rhymes in condition (iii) were matched to the rhyming nonce adjectives in terms of length; the mean numbers of letters were 8.34 in condition (i), 7.84 in condition (ii), and 8.03 in condition (iii), a non-significant difference (F(93, 2) = 1.26, p > 0.29).
 ... On the basis of this pretest, 32 critical items for each of the two conditions (Ôexist- ing -uraŐ and Ôexisting -ez(a)Ő) were chosen that were matched with respect to familiarity of use (mean -ura = 5.68, mean -ez(a) = 5.78, t(31) = 1.71, p > 0.10), length (number of letters: mean -ura = 8.34, mean -ez(a) = 7.84, t(31) = 1.37, p > 0.20) and lemma frequency (mean -ura = 3.00, mean -ez(a) = 4.36, t(31) = 1.39, p > 0.18)
",,,,,,,
,"Zhang, Y., Zhang, J., & Min, B. (2012). Brain & Language. Brain and language, 120(3), 321Đ331. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2011.10.007",+,"The ANOVA per- formed on the mean word frequencies did not reveal an effect of condition, F(2, 357) = 1.805, p = 0.166, MSE = 487.33, nor did the ANOVA performed on the mean number of strokes, F < 1.
... In addition, the sentence-initial object nouns were matched across conditions for written word frequencies, but not for number of strokes (see Table 2). The ANOVA performed on the mean word frequencies did not reveal an effect of condition, F(2, 357) = 1.88, p = 0.154, MSE = 2859.70, although the ANOVA performed on the mean number of strokes did, F(2, 357) = 3.53, p = 0.03, MSE = 37.30.
",,,"An analysis of variance (ANOVA) performed on the acceptability scores revealed a main ef- fect of condition [by subjects, F1(2, 58) = 147.47, p < 0.0005, MSE = 0.38; by items, F2(2,357) = 519.48, p < 0.0005, MSE = 0.44]. Post-hoc NewmanĐKeuls comparisons showed that the congruent sentences were rated more acceptable than both types of incongru- ent sentences (ps < 0.01). In addition, the sentences were more unacceptable in the Incongruent, Animacy-Mismatch than in the Incongruent, Animacy-Match condition (ps < 0.01).
",,,,
,"Laszlo, S., & Plaut, D. C. (2012). A neurally plausible parallel distributed processing model of event-related potential word reading data. Brain Lang, 120(3), 271Đ281. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2011.09.001",-,-,not an experiment,,,,,,
,"Buchweitz, A., Shinkareva, S. V., Mason, R. A., Mitchell, T. M., & Just, M. A. (2012). Brain & Language. Brain and language, 120(3), 282Đ289. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2011.09.003",+,-,,,,,,,
,"Arnold, K., & Zuberbźhler, K. (2012). Brain & Language. Brain and language, 120(3), 303Đ309. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2011.10.001",-,-,not an experiment,,,,,,
,"Thothathiri, M., Kim, A., Trueswell, J. C., & Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2012). Brain & Language. Brain and language, 120(3), 259Đ264. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2011.12.004",+,"Passive and active sentences did not differ in the num- ber of words or characters (F < 1; p > .3). Within the three types of passive sentences, none of the pair-wise comparisons were signif- icant (F<2; p>.2).
",,,,,,,
,"Thompson, C. K., Cho, S., Price, C., Wieneke, C., Bonakdarpour, B., Rogalski, E., et al. (2012). Brain & Language. Brain and language, 120(3), 237Đ250. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2011.11.003",++,"All items (both targets and IS) ranged from 1 to 3 syllables in length and were checked for frequency using the CELEX and MRC databases. Target (but not filler1) items were matched for frequency by category (i.e., living and non-living things) (target picture: t(38) = .899, p = .375) and with IS across categories; (t(318) = .062, p = .950). However, overall, the mean frequency of the semantically related IS (M = 0.6285) was significantly lower than that of unrelated IS (M = 1.1311) across SOAs",,,,,,,
,"Landi, N., Crowley, M. J., Wu, J., Bailey, C. A., & Mayes, L. C. (2012). Brain & Language. Brain and language, 120(3), 209Đ216. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2011.09.002",+,-,,,,,,,
,"Van Ettinger-Veenstra, H., Ragnehed, M., McAllister, A., Lundberg, P., & Engstršm, M. (2012). Brain & Language. Brain and language, 120(3), 395Đ400. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2011.10.002",+,-,,,,,,,
,"Lacey, S., Stilla, R., & Sathian, K. (2012). Brain & Language. Brain and language, 120(3), 416Đ421. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2011.12.016",+,"The metaphorical and control sentences were matched as a group for the average number of syllables per sentence (t106 = ??.25, p = .8).
the metaphorical and literal sentences were matched for duration (t106 = ??.02, p = .98), pitch (t106 = ??1.57, p = .12), amplitude (t106 = .46, p = .64), and speech rate (syllables per second) (t106 = ??.62, p = .53)",,,,,,,
,"Prendergast, G., & Green, G. G. R. (2012). Brain & Language. Brain and language, 120(3), 406Đ411. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2011.11.001",+,-,,,,,,,
,"Nardone, R., De Blasi, P., Zuccoli, G., Tezzon, F., Golaszewski, S., & Trinka, E. (2012). Brain & Language. Brain and language, 120(3), 422Đ426. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2012.01.001",-,-,,,,,,,
,"Sjerps, M. J., Mitterer, H., & McQueen, J. M. (2012). Brain & Language. Brain and language, 120(3), 401Đ405. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2011.12.012",-,-,,,,,,,
,"Cai, W., Oldenkamp, C. L., & Aron, A. R. (2012). Brain & Language. Brain and language, 120(3), 412Đ415. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2011.11.006",+,-,,,,,,,
,"Badcock, N. A., Bishop, D. V. M., Hardiman, M. J., Barry, J. G., & Watkins, K. E. (2012). Brain & Language. Brain and language, 120(3), 310Đ320. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2011.10.006",+,-,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,