Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41307741›Full record

ArticleJournal of psycholinguistic research2025

Superior Statistical Learning Relies on Rejecting Partwords.

Wenbo Yu, Tianlin Wang, Dandan Liang

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of psycholinguistic research, 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.

Wenbo YuSchool of Chinese Language and Culture, Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, P. R. China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8468-4918
Tianlin WangUniversity at Albany, State University of New York, Albany, NY, USA.
Dandan LiangSchool of Chinese Language and Culture, Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, P. R. China. ldd233@sina.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0006-5664-9361

Funding

Initial Scientific Research Fund of Nanjing Normal University 184080H202A121Social Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province Higher Education Institutions 2022SJYB2051
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Speech segmentation in statistical learning is typically measured by the 2-alternative-forced-choice (2AFC) task. Although previous analysis has found performance differences among learners and better performance might stems from the larger representational differences between target words and partwords given the memory-based model, the underlying learning mechanism that drives these differences remains unclear. In the current study, seventy-four participants listened to a novel language and were then asked to complete a 2AFC task and a 7-point Likert scale familiarity rating task. On the basis of participants' performance on the 2AFC task, we identified a real-learning criterion and divided participants into a superior-level group (38% of participants) and a regular-level group. Though both groups exhibited above-chance learning in the 2AFC and familiar rating tasks, superior learners performed significantly better than regular learners. In addition, a series of linear mixed effect models showed that superior- and regular-level groups produced comparable ratings on target words and nonwords; however, superior-level participants rated partwords as less familiar than regular-level participants. These patterns suggest that the only difference that contributed to their overall performance on the SL task was their perceived level of familiarity of partwords. This study highlights the importance of investigating SL mechanism from a memory-based model and provides a nuanced method for examining individual differences in SL tasks.

Indexed as

LearningProbability LearningPsycholinguisticsRecognition, PsychologySpeech PerceptionAdultFemaleHumansLanguageMaleYoung Adult2-alternative forced taskFamiliarity rating taskReal learning criterionStatistical learning

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.