Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26472644›Full record

ArticleLearning & memory (Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y.)2015

Functional differences between statistical learning with and without explicit training.

Laura J Batterink, Paul J Reber, Ken A Paller

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Learning & memory (Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y.), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Statistical learning of speech regularities can occur outside the focus of attention.Cortex; a journal devoted to the study of the nervous system and behavior · 2019
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Unlocking adults' implicit statistical learning by cognitive depletion.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Laura J BatterinkDepartment of Psychology, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 60208, USA lbatterink@northwestern.edu.
Paul J ReberDepartment of Psychology, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 60208, USA.
Ken A PallerDepartment of Psychology, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 60208, USA.
Northwestern University · US

Funding

TRAINING PROGRAM IN THE NEUROSCIENCE OF HUMAN COGNITIONT32NS047987 · NINDS · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AT CHICAGO · PI Rodrigo M Braga, Christina Maria Zelano · 2006 to 2026
$5.6M
Statistical learning, memory systems, and sleep-based memory consolidationF32HD078223 · NICHD · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY · PI BATTERINK, LAURA · 2014 to 2015
$106k
NICHD NIH HHS F32 HD 078223NICHD NIH HHS F32 HD078223NINDS NIH HHS T32 NS 047987NINDS NIH HHS T32 NS047987
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Humans are capable of rapidly extracting regularities from environmental input, a process known as statistical learning. This type of learning typically occurs automatically, through passive exposure to environmental input. The presumed function of statistical learning is to optimize processing, allowing the brain to more accurately predict and prepare for incoming input. In this study, we ask whether the function of statistical learning may be enhanced through supplementary explicit training, in which underlying regularities are explicitly taught rather than simply abstracted through exposure. Learners were randomly assigned either to an explicit group or an implicit group. All learners were exposed to a continuous stream of repeating nonsense words. Prior to this implicit training, learners in the explicit group received supplementary explicit training on the nonsense words. Statistical learning was assessed through a speeded reaction-time (RT) task, which measured the extent to which learners used acquired statistical knowledge to optimize online processing. Both RTs and brain potentials revealed significant differences in online processing as a function of training condition. RTs showed a crossover interaction; responses in the explicit group were faster to predictable targets and marginally slower to less predictable targets relative to responses in the implicit group. P300 potentials to predictable targets were larger in the explicit group than in the implicit group, suggesting greater recruitment of controlled, effortful processes. Taken together, these results suggest that information abstracted through passive exposure during statistical learning may be processed more automatically and with less effort than information that is acquired explicitly.

Indexed as

Probability LearningAdolescentAdultAuditory PerceptionCerebral CortexElectroencephalographyEvent-Related Potentials, P300Evoked Potentials, AuditoryFemaleHumansMaleMental RecallReaction TimeRecognition, PsychologyYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID26472644
PMCPMC4749726
OpenAlexW2286153972

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.