ArticleDevelopmental science2026
ManyBabies 3: A Multi-Lab Study of Infant Algebraic Rule Learning.
Article in Developmental science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- ManyBabies 3: A Multi-Lab Study of Infant Algebraic Rule Learning.Developmental science · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
84 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The ability to learn and apply rules lies at the heart of cognition. In a seminal study, Marcus et al. (1999) reported that 7-month-old infants learned abstract rules over syllable sequences and were able to generalize those rules to novel syllable sequences. Dozens of studies have since replicated that finding and extended it using different rules, modalities, stimuli, participants (human adults and non-human animals) and experimental procedures. Yet questions remain about the generalizability of the core findings in Marcus et al., and sources of variation across these findings. In the current study, we address this issue by testing 839 infants (650 after exclusions) of a wide age range (5;0-12;0 months) in a multi-laboratory (30 laboratories, [31 samples]) conceptual replication of the Marcus et al. study. This study and the analysis plan were submitted as a registered report. A mixed-model analysis of the looking times at consistent versus inconsistent test trials indicated no significant effect. The current study therefore finds no evidence for rule-learning; to the contrary, a Bayesian analysis of the data indicated strong evidence for a null effect. This was similarly the case for the moderating factors that were part of the design: mono- versus multilingualism, age, and experimental paradigm; none of these factors showed significant effects. Robustness analyses indicated that the results were not different in the case of different choices in the (pre-)processing of the data. A follow-up analysis for single labs indicated that there was no evidence of rule-learning in 30 of the 31 contributed samples. The current finding raises fundamental issues about rule-learning that are presented in the Discussion section.
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.