ArticleCognitive science2025
Do Humans Use Push-Down Stacks When Learning or Producing Center-Embedded Sequences?
Article in Cognitive science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Complex sequences are ubiquitous in human mental life, structuring representations within many different cognitive domains-natural language, music, mathematics, and logic, to name a few. However, the representational and computational machinery used to learn abstract grammars and process complex sequences is unknown. Here, we used an artificial grammar learning task to study how adults abstract center-embedded and cross-serial grammars that generalize beyond the level of embedding of the training sequences. We tested untrained generalizations to longer sequence lengths and used error patterns, item-to-item response times, and a Bayesian mixture model to test two possible memory architectures that might underlie the sequence representations of each grammar: stacks and queues. We find that adults learned both grammars, that the cross-serial grammar was easier to learn and produce than the matched center-embedded grammar, and that item-to-item touch times during sequence generation differed systematically between the two types of sequences. Contrary to widely held assumptions, we find no evidence that a stack architecture is used to generate center-embedded sequences in an indexed A
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.