Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31495072›Full record

SynthesisTopics in cognitive science2020

Exploring Variation Between Artificial Grammar Learning Experiments: Outlining a Meta-Analysis Approach.

Antony S Trotter, Padraic Monaghan, Gabriël J L Beckers, Morten H Christiansen

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Topics in cognitive science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Decomposing dynamical subprocesses for compositional generalization.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  3. Statistically based chunking of nonadjacent dependencies.Journal of experimental psychology. General · 2022
    Article
  4. 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

4 authors at 4 institutions in 5 countries.

Antony S TrotterDepartment of Speech, Hearing & Phonetic Sciences, University College London.
Padraic MonaghanDepartment of Psychology, Lancaster University.
Gabriël J L BeckersDepartment of Psychology, Cognitive Neurobiology and Helmholtz Institute, Utrecht University.
Morten H ChristiansenDepartment of Psychology, Cornell University.
Cornell University · USUniversity College London · GBUniversity of Amsterdam · NLUtrecht University · NL

Funding

T GONDII--ROLE OF INTRAEPITHELIAL LYMPHOCYTE HOMINGR03TW001003 · FIC · DARTMOUTH COLLEGE · PI KASPER, LLOYD H · 1998 to 2000
$32k
Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture, and ScienceEconomic and Social Research Council ES/Economic and Social Research Council L008955/1Lancaster UniversityThe Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research 024.001.003
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial grammar learning (AGL) has become an important tool used to understand aspects of human language learning and whether the abilities underlying learning may be unique to humans or found in other species. Successful learning is typically assumed when human or animal participants are able to distinguish stimuli generated by the grammar from those that are not at a level better than chance. However, the question remains as to what subjects actually learn in these experiments. Previous studies of AGL have frequently introduced multiple potential contributors to performance in the training and testing stimuli, but meta-analysis techniques now enable us to consider these multiple information sources for their contribution to learning-enabling intended and unintended structures to be assessed simultaneously. We present a blueprint for meta-analysis approaches to appraise the effect of learning in human and other animal studies for a series of artificial grammar learning experiments, focusing on studies that examine auditory and visual modalities. We identify a series of variables that differ across these studies, focusing on both structural and surface properties of the grammar, and characteristics of training and test regimes, and provide a first step in assessing the relative contribution of these design features of artificial grammars as well as species-specific effects for learning.

Indexed as

LearningMeta-Analysis as TopicPsycholinguisticsAdultAnimalsChildEffect Modifier, EpidemiologicHumansAdjacent dependenciesArtificial grammar learningAuditory modalityComparative studiesMeta-analysisNon-adjacent dependenciesVisual modality

Identifiers

PMID31495072
PMCPMC7496870
OpenAlexW2966484572

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.