Individual behavior in learning of an artificial grammar

Artificial grammar learning (AGL) is a widely used experimental paradigm that investigates how syntactic structures are processed. After a familiarization phase, participants have to distinguish strings consistent with a set of grammatical rules from strings that violate these rules. Many experiments report performance solely at a group level and as the total number of correct judgments. This report describes a systematic approach for investigating individual performance and a range of different behaviors. Participants were exposed to strings of the nonfinite grammar AnBn. To distinguish grammatical from ungrammatical strings, participants had to pay attention to local dependencies while comparing the number of stimuli from each class. Individual participants showed substantially different behavioral patterns despite exposure to the same stimuli. The results were replicated across auditory and visual sensory modalities. It is suggested that an analysis that looks at individual differences grants new insights into the processes involved in AGL. It also provides a solid basis from which to investigate sequence-processing abilities in special populations, such as patients with neurological lesions.

[1]  Pienie Zwitserlood,et al.  Syntactic structure and artificial grammar learning: The learnability of embedded hierarchical structures , 2008, Cognition.

[2]  John McDowall,et al.  Preserved Implicit Learning on Both the Serial Reaction Time Task and Artificial Grammar in Patients with Parkinson's Disease , 2001, Brain and Cognition.

[3]  Karl Magnus Petersson,et al.  Artificial syntactic violations activate Broca's region , 2004 .

[4]  Brenda R. J. Jansen,et al.  Rule transition on the balance scale task: a case study in belief change , 2007, Synthese.

[5]  A. Reber Implicit learning of artificial grammars , 1967 .

[6]  E. Pothos Theories of artificial grammar learning. , 2007, Psychological bulletin.

[7]  Nick Chater,et al.  Toward a connectionist model of recursion in human linguistic performance , 1999 .

[8]  Pierre Perruchet,et al.  Synthetic grammar learning: Implicit rule abstraction or explicit fragmentary knowledge? Journal of , 1990 .

[9]  S. Pinker,et al.  The faculty of language: what's special about it? , 2005, Cognition.

[10]  P. Hagoort,et al.  The inferior frontal cortex in artificial syntax processing: An rTMS study , 2008, Brain Research.

[11]  Timothy J. O'Donnell,et al.  Evolutionary Linguistics: A New Look at an Old Landscape , 2007 .

[12]  Todd M. Bailey,et al.  The role of similarity in artificial grammar learning. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[13]  R. A. Carlson,et al.  A case of syntactical learning and judgment: How conscious and how abstract? , 1984 .

[14]  A. Rey,et al.  Does the mastery of center-embedded linguistic structures distinguish humans from nonhuman primates? , 2005, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[15]  Elizabeth K. Johnson,et al.  Statistical learning of tone sequences by human infants and adults , 1999, Cognition.

[16]  A. Goldberg Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language , 2006 .

[17]  Peter M. Vishton,et al.  Rule learning by seven-month-old infants. , 1999, Science.

[18]  Timothy Q. Gentner,et al.  Recursive syntactic pattern learning by songbirds , 2006, Nature.

[19]  Vitor C. Zimmerer,et al.  Recursion in severe agrammatism , 2010 .

[20]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  The faculty of language: what is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? , 2002 .

[21]  N. Chater,et al.  Does stimulus appearance affect learning? , 2006, The American journal of psychology.

[22]  W. Fitch,et al.  Computational Constraints on Syntactic Processing in a Nonhuman Primate , 2004, Science.

[23]  A. Friederici Processing local transitions versus long-distance syntactic hierarchies , 2004, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[24]  Harry van der Hulst,et al.  Recursion and human language , 2010 .

[25]  Thomas F Münte,et al.  Implicit Learning is Intact in Adult Developmental Dyslexic Readers: Evidence from the Serial Reaction Time Task and Artificial Grammar Learning , 2006, Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology.

[26]  C. Shimp,et al.  “Artificial grammar learning” in pigeons: A preliminary analysis , 2003, Learning & behavior.

[27]  D. Caplan,et al.  Syntactic determinants of sentence comprehension in aphasia , 1985, Cognition.

[28]  Peter Ford Dominey,et al.  Training with cognitive sequences improves syntactic comprehension in agrammatic aphasics , 2003, Neuroreport.

[29]  R N Aslin,et al.  Statistical Learning by 8-Month-Old Infants , 1996, Science.

[30]  A. Goldberg The nature of generalization in language , 2009 .

[31]  M. Tomasello Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition , 2003 .

[32]  H.L.J. van der Maas,et al.  How to detect cognitive strategies: commentary on 'Differentiation and integration: guiding principles for analyzing cognitive change'. , 2008, Developmental science.

[33]  Adele E. Goldberg,et al.  Constructions at Work , 2005 .

[34]  Angela D. Friederici,et al.  Hierarchical artificial grammar processing engages Broca's area , 2008, NeuroImage.

[35]  Daniel I. A. Cohen,et al.  Introduction to computer theory , 1986 .

[36]  N. Chater,et al.  Transfer in artificial grammar learning : A reevaluation , 1996 .

[37]  M. Hauser,et al.  Grammatical pattern learning by human infants and cotton-top tamarin monkeys , 2008, Cognition.

[38]  M. Hauser,et al.  Segmentation of the speech stream in a non-human primate: statistical learning in cotton-top tamarins , 2001, Cognition.

[39]  Jacques Mehler,et al.  Do Humans Really Learn AnBn Artificial Grammars From Exemplars? , 2008, Cogn. Sci..

[40]  Ingmar Visser,et al.  Individual strategies in artificial grammar learning. , 2009, The American journal of psychology.