2020
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0232687
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Disentangling sequential from hierarchical learning in Artificial Grammar Learning: Evidence from a modified Simon Task

Abstract: In this paper we probe the interaction between sequential and hierarchical learning by investigating implicit learning in a group of school-aged children. We administered a serial reaction time task, in the form of a modified Simon Task in which the stimuli were organised following the rules of two distinct artificial grammars, specifically Lindenmayer systems: the Fibonacci grammar (Fib) and the Skip grammar (a modification of the former). The choice of grammars is determined by the goal of this study, which … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
26
3

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3
2

Relationship

1
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(33 citation statements)
references
References 44 publications
(104 reference statements)
2
26
3
Order By: Relevance
“…The use of the Fibonacci grammar aims precisely at avoiding this problem because it allows us to evaluate the learning during the processing without having to compare the performance to an alternative sequence. Our conceptual framework critically diverges from Vender et al (2020) in that rather than hypothesizing that the parser extracts some formal properties of the Fibonacci grammar (k-points), we hypothesize that it proceeds through recursively merging points that span across deterministic transitions, and then using the output of this process to merge new deterministic transitions between groups of points, resulting in the progressive building of a hierarchical structure. Participants may also develop knowledge of formal properties of the Fibonacci grammar; however, this question is beyond the scope of the present study.…”
Section: Present Studymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The use of the Fibonacci grammar aims precisely at avoiding this problem because it allows us to evaluate the learning during the processing without having to compare the performance to an alternative sequence. Our conceptual framework critically diverges from Vender et al (2020) in that rather than hypothesizing that the parser extracts some formal properties of the Fibonacci grammar (k-points), we hypothesize that it proceeds through recursively merging points that span across deterministic transitions, and then using the output of this process to merge new deterministic transitions between groups of points, resulting in the progressive building of a hierarchical structure. Participants may also develop knowledge of formal properties of the Fibonacci grammar; however, this question is beyond the scope of the present study.…”
Section: Present Studymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Preliminary findings in a recent study in our lab show that adults who report an autism diagnosis, or individuals in the Broader Autism Phenotype (as indicated by their poor scores on the Social Responsiveness Scale, SRS, Constantino & Gruber, 2012) in fact show superior performance in a visual-motor statistical learning task (where the sequence was a Fibonacci grammar, see Vender et al 2019Vender et al , 2020 -namely, they show robust detection of both simple and more complex sequential patterns, where the TD group shows learning only of the simpler pattern (see Zwart et al 2018 for a similar finding). Given that these individuals showed ceiling performance on our language tasks, we suggest that their strong language may have been developmentally supported by strong statistical learning abilities, acting as a protective factor against the negative effect of the social deficit.…”
Section: Social Communication and Statistical Learningmentioning
confidence: 80%
“…In the present study, we implemented Fibonacci sequences in an SRT task, thus avoiding the need to create non-grammatical Fib-strings (like in Geambaşu et al, 2016Geambaşu et al, , 2020. In contrast to Vender et al (2019Vender et al ( , 2020, dots were presented in the center of the screen, to avoid the interfering congruency factor introduced by the Simon task. Importantly, we developed new analyses, substantially different from those conducted in these 4 papers, which allowed us to more finely tease apart hierarchical learning from the tracking of surface regularities.…”
Section: A Left Panel)mentioning
confidence: 99%