Abstract

Statistical learning (SL) involving sensitivity to distributional regularities in the environment has been suggested to be an important factor in many aspects of cognition, including language. However, the degree to which statistically-learned information is retained over time is not well understood. To establish whether or not learners are able to preserve such regularities over time, we examined performance on an artificial second language learning task both immediately after training and also at a follow-up session 2 weeks later. Participants were exposed to an artificial language (Brocanto2), half of them receiving simplified training items in which only 20% of sequences contained complex structures, whereas the other half were exposed to a training set in which 80% of the items were composed of complex sequences. Overall, participants showed signs of learning at the first session and retention at the second, but the degree of learning was affected by the nature of the training they received. Participants exposed to the simplified input outperformed those in the more complex training condition. A GLMM was used to model the relationship between stimulus properties and participants’ endorsement strategies across both sessions. The results indicate that participants in the complex training condition relied more on an item’s chunk strength than those in the simple training condition. Taken together, this set of findings shows that statistically learned regularities are retained over the course of 2 weeks. The results also demonstrate that training on input featuring simple items leads to improved learning and retention of grammatical regularities.

Highlights

  • Statistical learning (SL) has been identified as a domain-general cognitive ability that is integral to language processing, acquisition, and evolution

  • Those in the simple training condition demonstrated above chance performance at both the first [t(23) = 4.018, p = 0.001, d = 0.83] and second [t(23) = 3.835, p = 0.001, d = 0.75] sessions. Those in the complex condition showed above chance accuracy at session one [t(22) = 2.907, p = 0.008, d = 0.60], but not at session two [t(22) = –0.172, p = 0.865, d = 0.03]. These results are taken to support that learning had taken place in both the simple and complex training condition

  • Related to the first hypothesis about retention, overall participant accuracy was above chance (i.e., 50%) when judging items as grammatical or ungrammatical at both sessions one [t(46) = 4.774, p < 0.001, d = 0.69; mean: 56.9% correct; standard deviation: 0.10; 95% CI: 54.1–60.0%] and two [t(46) = 2.452, p = 0.018, d = 0.36; mean: 53.6% correct; standard deviation: 0.10; 95% CI: 50.7–56.6%]

Read more

Summary

INTRODUCTION

Statistical learning (SL) has been identified as a domain-general cognitive ability that is integral to language processing, acquisition, and evolution (see Armstrong et al, 2017, for an overview). The statistical structure underlying the training items was not very complex in either study, again somewhat undermining the claim that the kinds of relationships learned between items in a sequence are characteristic of those in natural language Neither of these studies demonstrated a quintessential feature of learning in SL and artificial grammar learning (AGL), the generalization of learned regularities to new items. In the Complex condition, the other half of participants received far less training with simplified items prior to exposure to the set of complex items yet obtained the same amount of total experience in terms of number of trials These participants are predicted to have more trouble learning, and subsequently retaining, the rules of the artificial language as they would have insufficient experience processing simple constructions before encountering the more difficult complex items. The simple training group will likely not be as distracted by surface-level similarities between training and test items and will rather demonstrate knowledge of the higher-order grammatical regularities

Participants
Procedure
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
ETHICS STATEMENT
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call