{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04904306220095694, 'fraction_numerical': 0.04425837320574163, 'mean_word_length': 5.065217391304348, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Delong, Urbach & Kutas (2017), Concerns with Multi-lab Replication Attempt 1 Concerns with Nieuwland Et Al. (2017)

Nieuwland et al. (2017, http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/02/25/111807) recently made available their (thus far to our knowledge) unpublished manuscript, describing a nine-lab replication attempt of DeLong, Urbach and Kutas (2005), hereafter DUK05. They concluded that over their nine labs, the a/an Article prediction effect reported in DUK05 did not replicate. Here, we highlight some features of their project that undermine confidence in the purported non-replication of this relatively small language ERP effect. Our central concerns involve a number of discrepant ERP and behavioral findings between the original DUK05 report and the new nine-lab study, as well as discrepancies among the nine labs themselves.