ArticleBehavior research methods2020
Do current statistical learning tasks capture stable individual differences in children? An investigation of task reliability across modality.
Article in Behavior research methods, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
33 citing papers in PubMed, 94 citations in OpenAlex.
- The double-pass correlation: A reliability metric for subjective judgments in developmental research.MethodsX · 2026Article
- Re-Evaluating the Role of Statistical Learning: Domain-General Predictors of Language in Typical and Atypical Development.Cognitive science · 2026Article
- Is Chunking Ability Unitary Across Levels of Linguistic Representation?Cognitive science · 2026Article
- Modality-specific consolidation shapes long-term retention in statistical learning.Psychological research · 2026Article
- The Effects of Cognitive Fatigue and Articulatory Suppression on Statistical Language Learning Depend on the Strength of Cognitive Resources.Cognitive science · 2026Article
- Statistical learning in spelling and reading.Trends in cognitive sciences · 2025Review
- Superior Statistical Learning Relies on Rejecting Partwords.Journal of psycholinguistic research · 2025Article
- Addressing the theory crisis in statistical learning research.NPJ science of learning · 2025Review
- Improving the Reliability of the Pavlovian Go/No-Go Task for Computational Psychiatry Research.Computational psychiatry (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Article
- Reliability of the serial reaction time task: If at first you don't succeed, try, try, try again.Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006) · 2024Article
- Statistical learning and children's emergent literacy in rural Côte d'Ivoire.Developmental science · 2024Article
- Capturing individual differences in sentence processing: How reliable is the self-paced reading task?Behavior research methods · 2024Article
- Dissociation Between Linguistic and Nonlinguistic Statistical Learning in Children with Autism.Journal of autism and developmental disorders · 2024Article
- The complexity of measuring reliability in learning tasks: An illustration using the Alternating Serial Reaction Time Task.Behavior research methods · 2024Article
- Improving the Reliability of Cognitive Task Measures: A Narrative Review.Biological psychiatry. Cognitive neuroscience and neuroimaging · 2023Review
- The association between statistical learning and language development during childhood: A scoping review.Heliyon · 2023Article
- The reliability of the serial reaction time task: meta-analysis of test-retest correlations.Royal Society open science · 2023Article
- Modality-specific and modality-independent neural representations work in concert in predictive processes during sequence learning.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2023Article
- Reading fluency and statistical learning across modalities and domains: Online and offline measures.PloS one · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Do commonly used statistical-learning tasks capture stable individual differences in children? Infants, children, and adults are capable of using statistical learning (SL) to extract information about their environment. Although most studies have looked at group-level performance, a growing literature examines individual differences in SL and their relation to language-learning outcomes: Individuals who are better at SL are expected to show better linguistic abilities. Accordingly, studies have shown positive correlations between SL performance and language outcomes in both children and adults. However, these studies have often used tasks designed to explore group-level performance without modifying them, resulting in psychometric shortcomings that impact reliability in adults (Siegelman, Bogaerts, Christiansen, & Frost in Transactions of the Royal Society B, 372, 20160059, 2017a; Siegelman, Bogaerts, & Frost in Behavior Research Methods, 49, 418-432, 2017b). Even though similar measures are used to assess individual differences in children, no study to date has examined the reliability of these measures in development. This study examined the reliability of common SL measures in both children and adults. It assessed the reliability of three SL tasks (two auditory and one visual) twice (two months apart) in adults and children (mean age 8 years). Although the tasks showed moderate reliability in adults, they did not capture stable individual variation in children. None of the tasks were reliable across sessions, and all showed internal consistency measures well below psychometric standards. These findings raise significant concerns about the use of current SL measures to predict and explain individual differences in development. The article ends with a discussion of possible explanations for the difference in reliability between children and adults.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.