ArticlePloS one2024
Assessing processing-based measures of implicit statistical learning: Three serial reaction time experiments do not reveal artificial grammar learning.
Article in PloS one, 2024. 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.
- Addressing the theory crisis in statistical learning research.NPJ science of learning · 2025Review
- Assessing serial recall as a measure of artificial grammar learning.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Implicit statistical learning, whereby predictable relationships between stimuli are detected without conscious awareness, is important for language acquisition. However, while this process is putatively implicit, it is often assessed using measures that require explicit reflection and conscious decision making. Here, we conducted three experiments combining an artificial grammar learning paradigm with a serial reaction time (SRT-AGL) task, to measure statistical learning of adjacent and nonadjacent dependencies implicitly, without conscious decision making. Participants viewed an array of six visual stimuli and were presented with a sequence of three auditory (nonsense words, Expt. 1; names of familiar objects, Expt. 2) or visual (abstract shapes, Expt. 3) cues and were asked to click on the corresponding visual stimulus as quickly as possible. In each experiment, the final stimulus in the sequence was predictable based on items earlier in the sequence. Faster responses to this predictable final stimulus compared to unpredictable stimuli would provide evidence of implicit statistical learning, without requiring explicit decision making or conscious reflection. Despite previous positive results (Christiansen et al. 2009 and Misyak et al. 2010) we saw little evidence of implicit statistical learning in any of the experiments, suggesting that in this case, these SRT-AGL tasks were not an effective measure implicit statistical 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.