Separate influences in learning: Evidence from artificial grammar learning with traumatic brain injury patients

Artificial grammar learning (AGL) is one of the most extensively employed paradigms for the study of learning. Grammaticality is one of the most common ways to index performance in AGL. However, there is still extensive debate on whether there is a distinct psychological process which can lead to grammaticality knowledge. An application of the COVIS model of categorization in AGL suggests that grammaticality might arise from a hypothesis-testing system (when grammaticality is appropriately balanced with other knowledge influences), so that prefrontal cortex damage should be associated with impaired grammaticality and intact chunk strength performance. This prediction was confirmed in a study of traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients and matched controls. The TBI patient cohort had diffuse prefrontal cortex damage as evidenced by the history of their injury, CT scans, and severe executive functioning problems. Our results allow a novel interpretation of grammaticality and AGL in general.

[1]  L R Squire,et al.  The information acquired during artificial grammar learning. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[2]  B. Postle,et al.  Prefrontal cortical contributions to working memory: evidence from event-related fMRI studies , 2000, Experimental Brain Research.

[3]  John R. Vokey,et al.  Salience of Item Knowledge in Learning Artificial Grammars , 1992 .

[4]  R. Nosofsky,et al.  Feedback interference and dissociations of classification: Evidence against the multiple-learning-systems hypothesis , 2007, Memory & cognition.

[5]  Barbara J Knowlton,et al.  Visual feature learning in artificial grammar classification. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[6]  David R. Shanks,et al.  Subjective measures of awareness and implicit cognition , 2003, Memory & cognition.

[7]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Learning-related neuronal responses in prefrontal cortex studied with functional neuroimaging. , 1999, Cerebral cortex.

[8]  Jared G. Smith,et al.  The implicit sequence learning deficit in patients with Parkinson's disease: A matter of impaired sequence integration? , 2006, Neuropsychologia.

[9]  R. Mathews,et al.  Role of Implicit and Explicit Processes in Learning From Examples : A Synergistic Effect , 2004 .

[10]  K. Taber,et al.  Blast-related traumatic brain injury: what is known? , 2006, The Journal of neuropsychiatry and clinical neurosciences.

[11]  Todd M. Bailey,et al.  AGL StimSelect: Software for automated selection of stimuli for artificial grammar learning , 2008, Behavior research methods.

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

[13]  Paul W. Burgess,et al.  Behavioural Assessment of the Dysexecutive Syndrome , 1997 .

[14]  Arthur S. Reber,et al.  Analogic and abstraction strategies in synthetic grammar learning: A functionalist interpretation , 1978, Cognition.

[15]  Paul Green,et al.  The lesion(s) in traumatic brain injury: implications for clinical neuropsychology. , 2003, Archives of clinical neuropsychology : the official journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists.

[16]  A. Reber Implicit learning and tacit knowledge , 1993 .

[17]  John Paul Minda,et al.  Learning rule-described and non-rule-described categories: a comparison of children and adults. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[18]  A. Baddeley,et al.  Dual-task performance in dysexecutive and nondysexecutive patients with a frontal lesion. , 1997, Neuropsychology.

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

[20]  P W Burgess,et al.  Strategy application disorder: the role of the frontal lobes in human multitasking , 2000, Psychological research.

[21]  D. Shanks,et al.  Two mechanisms in implicit artificial grammar learning? Comment on Meulemans and Van der Linden (1997). , 1999 .

[22]  Bertram Opitz,et al.  Interactions of the hippocampal system and the prefrontal cortex in learning language-like rules , 2003, NeuroImage.

[23]  S. Sloman,et al.  Similarity as an explanatory construct , 1998, Cognition.

[24]  Dianne C. Berry,et al.  Implicit Learning , 1993 .

[25]  Joan Y. Chiao,et al.  An Event-related fMRI Study of Artificial Grammar Learning in a Balanced Chunk Strength Design , 2004, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[26]  R. Tunney,et al.  Two modes of transfer in artificial grammar learning. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[27]  Z. Dienes,et al.  A theory of implicit and explicit knowledge , 1999, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

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

[29]  A. Baddeley Fractionating the central executive. , 2002 .

[30]  Johan Wagemans,et al.  Perceived Shape Similarity among Unfamiliar Objects and the Organization of the Human Object Vision Pathway , 2008, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[31]  W. T. Maddox,et al.  Dual-task interference in perceptual category learning , 2006, Memory & cognition.

[32]  Paul J. Reber,et al.  Neural Correlates of Artificial Grammar Learning , 2002, NeuroImage.

[33]  D. Dulany Strategies for putting consciousness in its place. , 2003 .

[34]  M. Banich Executive Function , 2009 .

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

[36]  Gregory Ashby,et al.  A neuropsychological theory of multiple systems in category learning. , 1998, Psychological review.

[37]  J. Crawford,et al.  estimating premorbid WAIS-R IQ with demographic variables: Regression equations derived from a UK sample , 1997 .

[38]  John O. Willis,et al.  Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–Third Edition , 2008 .

[39]  A. Friederici,et al.  Brain Correlates of Language Learning: The Neuronal Dissociation of Rule-Based versus Similarity-Based Learning , 2004, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[40]  John K Kruschke,et al.  Single-system models and interference in category learning: Commentary on Waldron and Ashby (2001) , 2002, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

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

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

[43]  John McDowall,et al.  When artificial grammar acquisition in Parkinson's disease is impaired: The case of learning via trial-by-trial feedback , 2006, Brain Research.

[44]  Arthur F. Kramer,et al.  fMRI Studies of Stroop Tasks Reveal Unique Roles of Anterior and Posterior Brain Systems in Attentional Selection , 2000, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[45]  E. Pothos The rules versus similarity distinction. , 2005, The Behavioral and brain sciences.

[46]  L. Squire,et al.  Artificial grammar learning depends on implicit acquisition of both abstract and exemplar-specific information. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[47]  A. Anwander,et al.  The brain differentiates human and non-human grammars: Functional localization and structural connectivity , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

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