. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2022 Nov 1.

Published in final edited form as: J Exp Psychol Gen. 2021 Aug 9;150(11):e22–e56. doi: 10.1037/xge0001039

Table C1.

Results of non-Bayesian power simulations. CNTL: control exposure; ST: single-talker MT: multi-talker; TS: talker-specific. Each cell shows percentage of 1000 GLMM power simulations that found a significant effect in the correct direction. Parentheses show percentage of GLMMs that converged with full random effect structure (regardless of successful detection of the effect).

	Simulation 1		Simulation 2	Simulation 3
	BB08	Exp 1a	Exp 1a (2σ)	Exp 1a ( $\frac{1}{2} β$ )

Adaptation: TS vs. CNTL	57.9% (12%)	98.8% (36%)	99.1% (36%)	63.4% (80%)

Question 1: MT vs. CNTL	38.4% (12%)	96.4% (36%)	95.6% (36%)	50.1% (80%)

Question 2: ST vs. CNTL	25.9% (12%)	56.7% (36%)	54.8% (36%)	19.0% (80%)

Question 3: MT vs. ST	21.0% (10%)	45.9% (42%)	44.7% (42%)	14.1% (86%)