Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40952769›Full record

ArticleCognitive science2025

Do Humans Use Push-Down Stacks When Learning or Producing Center-Embedded Sequences?

Stephen Ferrigno, Samuel J Cheyette, Susan Carey

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Stephen FerrignoDepartment of Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Madison.ORCID 0000-0002-8021-1662
Samuel J CheyetteDepartment of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Susan CareyDepartment of Psychology, Harvard University.

Funding

The Development and Nature of the Processes that Underlie the Representation of Center-embedded, Recursive StructuresF32HD101208 · NICHD · HARVARD UNIVERSITY · PI FERRIGNO, STEPHEN · 2019 to 2021
$197k
James S. McDonnell Foundation JSMF220020449NICHD NIH HHS F32 HD101208NIH HHS F32HD101208
6 · The paper itself

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

Generalization, PsychologicalLearningMemoryAdultBayes TheoremFemaleHumansLanguageMaleYoung AdultArtificial grammarCenter‐embedded structuresCross‐serial structuresRecursionSequence learning

Identifiers

PMID40952769
PMCPMC12435407

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.