An evolutionary account of intermodality differences in statistical learning

The cognitive mechanisms underlying statistical learning are engaged for the purposes of speech processing and language acquisition. However, these mechanisms are shared by a wide variety of species that do not possess the language faculty. Moreover, statistical learning operates across domains, including nonlinguistic material. Ancient mechanisms for segmenting continuous sensory input into discrete constituents have evolved for general-purpose segmentation of the environment and been readopted for processing linguistic input. Linguistic input provides a rich set of cues for the boundaries between sequential constituents. Such input engages a wider variety of more specialized mechanisms operating on these language-specific cues, thus potentially reducing the role of conditional statistics in tokenizing a continuous linguistic stream. We provide an explicit within-subject comparison of the utility of statistical learning in language versus nonlanguage domains across the visual and auditory modalities. The results showed that in the auditory modality statistical learning is more efficient with speech-like input, while in the visual modality efficiency is higher with nonlanguage input. We suggest that the speech faculty has been important for individual fitness for an extended period, leading to the adaptation of statistical learning mechanisms for speech processing. This is not the case in the visual modality, in which linguistic material presents a less ecological type of sensory input.

[1]  Erik D. Thiessen,et al.  The extraction and integration framework: a two-process account of statistical learning. , 2013, Psychological bulletin.

[2]  S. Kirby,et al.  Cultural evolution: implications for understanding the human language faculty and its evolution , 2008, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[3]  LouAnn Gerken,et al.  From domain-generality to domain-sensitivity: 4-Month-olds learn an abstract repetition rule in music that 7-month-olds do not , 2009, Cognition.

[4]  Stephan Lewandowsky,et al.  Theoretical and empirical evidence for the impact of inductive biases on cultural evolution , 2008, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[5]  Axel Cleeremans,et al.  Project DyAdd: Implicit learning in adult dyslexia and ADHD , 2014, Annals of dyslexia.

[6]  David Soto,et al.  Neural bases of learning and recognition of statistical regularities , 2020, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[7]  E. Newport,et al.  WORD SEGMENTATION : THE ROLE OF DISTRIBUTIONAL CUES , 1996 .

[8]  R. M. Warren,et al.  Detection of acoustic repetition for very long stochastic patterns , 2001, Perception & psychophysics.

[9]  Janne von Koss Torkildsen,et al.  Statistical learning under incidental versus intentional conditions , 2014, Front. Psychol..

[10]  Erik D. Thiessen Effects of Inter- and Intra-modal Redundancy on Infants' Rule Learning , 2012 .

[11]  R. M. Warren,et al.  Auditory Sequence: Confusion of Patterns Other Than Speech or Music , 1969, Science.

[12]  Erik D. Thiessen,et al.  Statistical learning of language: Theory, validity, and predictions of a statistical learning account of language acquisition , 2015 .

[13]  Richard N Aslin,et al.  Statistical learning of adjacent and nonadjacent dependencies among nonlinguistic sounds , 2009, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[14]  Morten H. Christiansen,et al.  Modality-constrained statistical learning of tactile, visual, and auditory sequences. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[15]  K. Pugh,et al.  Domain Generality and Specificity of Statistical Learning and its Relation with Reading Ability , 2018 .

[16]  Michael Gross,et al.  The evolution of writing , 2012, Current Biology.

[17]  Nicola Molinaro,et al.  Electrophysiology of statistical learning: Exploring the online learning process and offline learning product , 2019, The European journal of neuroscience.

[18]  Morten H. Christiansen,et al.  Please Scroll down for Article European Journal of Cognitive Psychology Seeing and Hearing in Space and Time: Effects of Modality and Presentation Rate on Implicit Statistical Learning , 2022 .

[19]  Morten H. Christiansen,et al.  Domain generality versus modality specificity: the paradox of statistical learning , 2015, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[20]  M. Cooke,et al.  Recognizing speech under a processing load: Dissociating energetic from informational factors , 2009, Cognitive Psychology.

[21]  Laurence White,et al.  Integration of multiple speech segmentation cues: a hierarchical framework. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[22]  N. Goren-Inbar,et al.  Cognition and communication in the Levantine Lower Palaeolithic , 1994 .

[23]  J. Saffran Constraints on Statistical Language Learning , 2002 .

[24]  S. Dehaene,et al.  How Learning to Read Changes the Cortical Networks for Vision and Language , 2010, Science.

[25]  R. Schvaneveldt,et al.  The basis of transfer in artificial grammar learning , 2000, Memory & cognition.

[26]  Shani Kahta,et al.  Implicit learning deficits among adults with developmental dyslexia , 2016, Annals of dyslexia.

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

[28]  Morten H. Christiansen,et al.  Statistical Learning and Language: An Individual Differences Study , 2012 .

[29]  Erik D. Thiessen,et al.  Domain general constraints on statistical learning. , 2011, Child development.

[30]  B. Scholl,et al.  The Automaticity of Visual Statistical Learning Statistical Learning , 2005 .

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

[32]  Christopher M. Conway How does the brain learn environmental structure? Ten core principles for understanding the neurocognitive mechanisms of statistical learning , 2020, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews.

[33]  A. Zénon,et al.  Statistical Regularities Attract Attention when Task-Relevant , 2016, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[34]  Morten H. Christiansen,et al.  PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Research Article Statistical Learning Within and Between Modalities Pitting Abstract Against Stimulus-Specific Representations , 2022 .

[35]  D Broadbent,et al.  Implicit and explicit knowledge bases in artificial grammar learning. , 1991, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[36]  Scott P. Johnson,et al.  Infant Rule Learning Facilitated by Speech , 2007, Psychological science.

[37]  Christopher I. Petkov,et al.  Auditory and Visual Sequence Learning in Humans and Monkeys using an Artificial Grammar Learning Paradigm , 2017, Neuroscience.

[38]  K. Laland,et al.  Experimental Evidence for the Co-Evolution of Hominin Tool-Making Teaching and Language , 2014, Nature Communications.

[39]  M. Vanhaeren,et al.  Archaeological Evidence for the Emergence of Language, Symbolism, and Music–An Alternative Multidisciplinary Perspective , 2003 .

[40]  Dare A. Baldwin,et al.  Attention reorganizes as structure is detected in dynamic action , 2018, Memory & Cognition.

[41]  J. Werker,et al.  Tuned to the signal: the privileged status of speech for young infants. , 2004, Developmental science.

[42]  W. Fitch,et al.  The Biology and Evolution of Speech: A Comparative Analysis , 2018 .

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

[44]  P. Mellars Why did modern human populations disperse from Africa ca. 60,000 years ago? A new model. , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[45]  Scott P. Johnson,et al.  Visual statistical learning in infancy: evidence for a domain general learning mechanism , 2002, Cognition.

[46]  J. Mehler,et al.  Bootstrapping word order in prelexical infants: A Japanese–Italian cross-linguistic study , 2008, Cognitive Psychology.

[47]  Shani Kahta,et al.  The role of feedback in implicit and explicit artificial grammar learning: a comparison between dyslexic and non-dyslexic adults , 2017, Annals of dyslexia.

[48]  S. Dehaene,et al.  Cultural Recycling of Cortical Maps , 2007, Neuron.

[49]  Richard J. Tunney,et al.  The transfer effect in artificial grammar learning: Reappraising the evidence on the transfer of sequential dependencies. , 1999 .

[50]  C. Petkov,et al.  Evolutionarily conserved neural signatures involved in sequencing predictions and their relevance for language , 2018, Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences.

[51]  Morten H. Christiansen,et al.  Towards a theory of individual differences in statistical learning , 2017, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[52]  Aaron D. Mitchel,et al.  Learning across senses: cross-modal effects in multisensory statistical learning. , 2011, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.