ArticleFrontiers in psychology2022
Which Cognitive Factors Predict L2 Grammar Learning: Cognitive Control, Statistical Learning, Working Memory, or Attention?
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dictogloss-based instruction and conjunction use in Palestinian tenth-grade EFL learners.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- The domain-general and domain-specific cognitive profiles in high and low-achieving Chinese L2 learners.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Individual variability of cognitive factors in second language (L2) grammar learning has long been the focus in the field of L2 acquisition. Most explored the issue by focusing on one factor like cognitive control, working memory, statistical learning (SL), or attention. Few investigated the topic by taking all these factors into consideration. However, different factors might interact and collaboratively contribute to the learning process. Examining the issue by considering all the factors might yield different results and facilitate our understanding of the mechanism subserving L2 grammar learning. Therefore, this study explored whether and how these factors predicted L2 grammar learning. A total of 34 college students completed a set of cognitive measurements on these cognitive factors, after which they were trained with artificial grammar over 5 consecutive days. Using multiple regression analysis and machine learning algorithms, we found that in the initial phase, SL was the more significant predictor, whereas in the intermediate and the last phases, cognitive control served as the more significant predictor. In other words, in the initial phase of L2 grammar learning, SL might play an important role, whereas in the intermediate and proficient phase, the updating component of cognitive control might play a more significant role. The findings provided empirical evidence to the neurocognitive account of grammar learning, shedding light on the mechanism of L2 grammar learning.
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.