Context influences conscious appraisal of cross situational statistical learning

Previous research in cross-situational statistical learning has established that people can track statistical information across streams in order to map nonce words to their referent objects (Yu and Smith, 2007). Under some circumstances, learners are able to acquire multiple mappings for a single object (e.g., Yurovsky and Yu, 2008). Here we explore whether having a contextual cue associated with a new mapping may facilitate this process, or the conscious awareness of learning. Using a cross-situational statistical learning paradigm, in which learners could form both 1:1 and 2:1 word–object mappings over two phases of learning, we collected confidence ratings during familiarization and provided a retrospective test to gage learning. In Condition 1, there were no contextual cues to indicate a change in mappings (baseline). Conditions 2 and 3 added contextual cues (a change in speaker voice or explicit instructions, respectively) to the second familiarization phase to determine their effects on the trajectory of learning. While contextual cues did not facilitate acquisition of 2:1 mappings as assessed by retrospective measures, confidence ratings for these mappings were significantly higher in contextual cue conditions compared to the baseline condition with no cues. These results suggest that contextual cues corresponding to changes in the input may influence the conscious awareness of learning.

[1]  James P. Byrnes,et al.  Perspectives on language and thought : interrelations in development , 1991 .

[2]  T. Seiler,et al.  Concept development and the development of word meaning , 1983 .

[3]  Linda B. Smith,et al.  Infants rapidly learn word-referent mappings via cross-situational statistics , 2008, Cognition.

[4]  L. Gleitman.  The Structural Sources of Verb Meanings , 2020, Sentence First, Arguments Afterward.

[5]  Willard Van Orman Quine,et al.  Word and Object , 1960 .

[6]  Patrick Rebuschat,et al.  How implicit is statistical learning , 2012 .

[7]  J. Siskind.  A computational study of cross-situational techniques for learning word-to-meaning mappings , 1996, Cognition.

[8]  R. Winter.  What's in a face? , 1996, Nature Genetics.

[9]  S. Suter.  Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children , 2005, European Journal of Pediatrics.

[10]  R. Aslin,et al.  Statistical learning in a serial reaction time task: access to separable statistical cues by individual learners. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[11]  D. Povinelli,et al.  Mindblindness. An Essay on Autism and Theory of Mind Simon Baron-Cohen 1995 , 1996, Trends in Neurosciences.

[12]  S. Brown-Schmidt,et al.  Talker-specific perceptual adaptation during online speech perception , 2012 .

[13]  Scott Sinnett,et al.  Speech segmentation by statistical learning depends on attention , 2005, Cognition.

[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]  Rebecca J. Panagos.  Meaningful Differences in the Everyday Experience of Young American Children , 1998 .

[16]  Leslie M. Bailey,et al.  Young children and adults use lexical principles to learn New Nouns , 1992 .

[17]  L. Gleitman,et al.  How words can and cannot be learned by observation , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

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

[19]  S. Brennan,et al.  When conceptual pacts are broken: Partner-specific effects on the comprehension of referring expressions , 2003 .

[20]  R. H. Hunt,et al.  Statistical learning in a serial reaction time task: Simultaneous extraction of multiple statistics , 2001 .

[21]  Morten H. Christiansen,et al.  Looking in the Wrong Direction Correlates With More Accurate Word Learning , 2011, Cogn. Sci..

[22]  Richard N. Aslin,et al.  Learning to Represent a Multi-Context Environment: More than Detecting Changes , 2012, Front. Psychology.

[23]  Eve V. Clark,et al.  The principle of contrast: A constraint on language acquisition. , 1987 .

[24]  Michael Tomasello,et al.  Learning words in nonostensive contexts , 1994 .

[25]  Chen Yu,et al.  Modeling cross-situational word-referent learning: prior questions. , 2012, Psychological review.

[26]  Z. Dienes,et al.  Measuring unconscious knowledge: distinguishing structural knowledge and judgment knowledge , 2005, Psychological research.

[27]  E. Markman.  Perspectives on language and thought: The whole-object, taxonomic, and mutual exclusivity assumptions as initial constraints on word meanings , 1991 .

[28]  J. Werker,et al.  Monolingual, bilingual, trilingual: infants' language experience influences the development of a word-learning heuristic. , 2009, Developmental science.

[29]  Carmel Houston-Price,et al.  Language Experience Shapes the Development of the Mutual Exclusivity Bias. , 2010, Infancy : the official journal of the International Society on Infant Studies.

[30]  D. Berry,et al.  What's in a Face? , 1988, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.

[31]  Afsaneh Fazly,et al.  A Probabilistic Computational Model of Cross-Situational Word Learning , 2010, Cogn. Sci..

[32]  L. Markson,et al.  Children's avoidance of lexical overlap: a pragmatic account. , 2001, Developmental psychology.

[33]  Sarah C. Creel,et al.  Heeding the voice of experience: The role of talker variation in lexical access , 2008, Cognition.

[34]  Michael C. Frank,et al.  PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Research Article Using Speakers ’ Referential Intentions to Model Early Cross-Situational Word Learning , 2022 .

[35]  E. Markman,et al.  Children's use of mutual exclusivity to constrain the meanings of words , 1988, Cognitive Psychology.

[36]  Catherine M. Sandhofer,et al.  Retrieval Dynamics and Retention in Cross-Situational Statistical Word Learning , 2014, Cogn. Sci..

[37]  Chen Yu,et al.  Mutual Exclusivity in Cross-Situational Statistical Learning , 2008 .

[38]  Linda B. Smith,et al.  The importance of shape in early lexical learning , 1988 .

[39]  Chen Yu,et al.  What you learn is what you see: using eye movements to study infant cross-situational word learning. , 2011, Developmental science.

[40]  Daniel J. Weiss,et al.  What's in a face? Visual contributions to speech segmentation , 2010 .

[41]  Frequency effects, learning conditions, and the development of implicit and explicit lexical knowledge , 2014 .

[42]  Axel Cleeremans,et al.  Statistical Learning of Two Artificial Languages Presented Successively: How Conscious? , 2011, Front. Psychology.

[43]  Axel Cleeremans,et al.  Implicit learning: news from the front , 1998, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[44]  E. Clark.  Convention and Contrast in Acquiring the Lexicon , 1983 .

[45]  Linda B. Smith,et al.  Rapid Word Learning Under Uncertainty via Cross-Situational Statistics , 2007, Psychological science.

[46]  Chen Yu,et al.  Frequency and Contextual Diversity Effects in Cross-Situational Word Learning , 2009 .

[47]  Chip Gerfen,et al.  Speech Segmentation in a Simulated Bilingual Environment: A Challenge for Statistical Learning? , 2009, Language learning and development : the official journal of the Society for Language Development.

[48]  Larissa K. Samuelson,et al.  Word learning emerges from the interaction of online referent selection and slow associative learning. , 2012, Psychological review.

[49]  Michael C. Frank,et al.  Cross-situational Word Learning Respects Mutual Exclusivity , 2009 .

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

[51]  Richard N. Aslin,et al.  Changing Structures in Midstream: Learning Along the Statistical Garden Path , 2009, Cogn. Sci..

[52]  P. Perruchet,et al.  Implicit learning and statistical learning: one phenomenon, two approaches , 2006, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.