Can We Improve Structured Sequence Processing? Exploring the Direct and Indirect Effects of Computerized Training Using a Mediational Model

Recent research suggests that language acquisition may rely on domain-general learning abilities, such as structured sequence processing, which is the ability to extract, encode, and represent structured patterns in a temporal sequence. If structured sequence processing supports language, then it may be possible to improve language function by enhancing this foundational learning ability. The goal of the present study was to use a novel computerized training task as a means to better understand the relationship between structured sequence processing and language function. Participants first were assessed on pre-training tasks to provide baseline behavioral measures of structured sequence processing and language abilities. Participants were then quasi-randomly assigned to either a treatment group involving adaptive structured visuospatial sequence training, a treatment group involving adaptive non-structured visuospatial sequence training, or a control group. Following four days of sequence training, all participants were assessed with the same pre-training measures. Overall comparison of the post-training means revealed no group differences. However, in order to examine the potential relations between sequence training, structured sequence processing, and language ability, we used a mediation analysis that showed two competing effects. In the indirect effect, adaptive sequence training with structural regularities had a positive impact on structured sequence processing performance, which in turn had a positive impact on language processing. This finding not only identifies a potential novel intervention to treat language impairments but also may be the first demonstration that structured sequence processing can be improved and that this, in turn, has an impact on language processing. However, in the direct effect, adaptive sequence training with structural regularities had a direct negative impact on language processing. This unexpected finding suggests that adaptive training with structural regularities might potentially interfere with language processing. Taken together, these findings underscore the importance of pursuing designs that promote a better understanding of the mechanisms underlying training-related changes, so that regimens can be developed that help reduce these types of negative effects while simultaneously maximizing the benefits to outcome measures of interest.

[1]  Kristopher J Preacher,et al.  SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models , 2004, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[2]  A. Hayes.  Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical Mediation Analysis in the New Millennium , 2009 .

[3]  J. Saffran.  Statistical Language Learning , 2003 .

[4]  M. H. Kelly,et al.  Domain-general abilities applied to domain-specific tasks: Sensitivity to probabilities in perception, cognition, and language☆ , 1994 .

[5]  Guillén Fernández,et al.  Neural correlates of artificial syntactic structure classification , 2006, NeuroImage.

[6]  A. Hayes.  Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach , 2013 .

[7]  Christopher M. Conway,et al.  Neurocognitive Basis of Implicit Learning of Sequential Structure and Its Relation to Language Processing , 2008, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[8]  Torkel Klingberg,et al.  Training and transfer effects of executive functions in preschool children. , 2009, Developmental science.

[9]  M. D’Esposito.  Working memory. , 2008, Handbook of clinical neurology.

[10]  T. Klingberg,et al.  Computerized working memory training after stroke–A pilot study , 2007, Brain injury.

[11]  Jenny R. Saffran,et al.  Domain‐General Learning Capacities , 2008 .

[12]  Christopher M. Conway,et al.  Implicit statistical learning in language processing: Word predictability is the key , 2010, Cognition.

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

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

[15]  E. Newport,et al.  Learning at a distance I. Statistical learning of non-adjacent dependencies , 2004, Cognitive Psychology.

[16]  Christopher M. Conway,et al.  Implicit sequence learning in deaf children with cochlear implants. , 2011, Developmental science.

[17]  Morten H. Christiansen,et al.  Sequential learning in non-human primates , 2001, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[18]  M. Ullman.  Contributions of memory circuits to language: the declarative/procedural model , 2004, Cognition.

[19]  Christopher M. Conway,et al.  Contribution of implicit sequence learning to spoken language processing: some preliminary findings with hearing adults. , 2007, Journal of deaf studies and deaf education.

[20]  Thomas S. Redick,et al.  Is working memory training effective? , 2012, Psychological bulletin.

[21]  H. Forssberg,et al.  Computerized training of working memory in children with ADHD--a randomized, controlled trial. , 2005, Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.

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

[23]  Stefan Knecht,et al.  Electrical Stimulation of Broca's Area Enhances Implicit Learning of an Artificial Grammar , 2010, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[24]  H. Forssberg,et al.  Training of Working Memory in Children With ADHD , 2002 .

[25]  David B Pisoni,et al.  Working memory training for children with cochlear implants: a pilot study. , 2011, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[26]  R. Gómez.  Variability and Detection of Invariant Structure , 2002, Psychological science.

[27]  Monica Melby-Lervåg,et al.  Is working memory training effective? A meta-analytic review. , 2013, Developmental psychology.

[28]  Kristopher J Preacher,et al.  Statistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical independent variable. , 2014, The British journal of mathematical and statistical psychology.

[29]  Morten H. Christiansen,et al.  Similar neural correlates for language and sequential learning: Evidence from event-related brain potentials , 2012, Language and cognitive processes.

[30]  John Field,et al.  Language and the mind , 1968 .

[31]  Karolina Janacsek,et al.  Interference between Sentence Processing and Probabilistic Implicit Sequence Learning , 2011, PloS one.

[32]  Julia Uddén,et al.  A rostro-caudal gradient of structured sequence processing in the left inferior frontal gyrus , 2012, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

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

[34]  Laura Petrosini,et al.  Implicit learning deficit in children with developmental dyslexia , 2003, Neuropsychologia.

[35]  S. Gathercole,et al.  Taking working memory training from the laboratory into schools , 2013, Educational psychology.

[36]  T. Klingberg,et al.  Increased prefrontal and parietal activity after training of working memory , 2004, Nature Neuroscience.

[37]  John G. Lynch,et al.  Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and Truths about Mediation Analysis , 2010 .

[38]  Morten H. Christiansen,et al.  On-Line Individual Differences in Statistical Learning Predict Language Processing , 2010, Front. Psychology.

[39]  Yvonne Brehmer,et al.  Working-memory training in younger and older adults: training gains, transfer, and maintenance , 2012, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[40]  Kristopher J Preacher,et al.  Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models , 2008, Behavior research methods.

[41]  J. Bruce Tomblin,et al.  Procedural Learning in Adolescents With and Without Specific Language Impairment , 2007 .