What do animals learn in artificial grammar studies?

HighlightsArtificial grammars are often used to assess syntactic capabilities in animals.Often, biases can be found in acoustic overlap between training and test stimuli.Neural systems can assess acoustic similarity without syntactic computations.Acoustic similarity is a blind spot in many studies, and should be controlled for. Abstract Artificial grammar learning is a popular paradigm to study syntactic ability in nonhuman animals. Subjects are first trained to recognize strings of tokens that are sequenced according to grammatical rules. Next, to test if recognition depends on grammaticality, subjects are presented with grammar‐consistent and grammar‐violating test strings, which they should discriminate between. However, simpler cues may underlie discrimination if they are available. Here, we review stimulus design in a sample of studies that use particular sounds as tokens, and that claim or suggest their results demonstrate a form of sequence rule learning. To assess the extent of acoustic similarity between training and test strings, we use four simple measures corresponding to cues that are likely salient. All stimulus sets contain biases in similarity measures such that grammatical test stimuli resemble training stimuli acoustically more than do non‐grammatical test stimuli. These biases may contribute to response behaviour, reducing the strength of grammatical explanations. We conclude that acoustic confounds are a blind spot in artificial grammar learning studies in nonhuman animals.

[1]  Carel ten Cate,et al.  Artificial grammar learning in zebra finches and human adults: XYX versus XXY , 2014, Animal Cognition.

[2]  Yukiko Kikuchi,et al.  Auditory Artificial Grammar Learning in Macaque and Marmoset Monkeys , 2013, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[3]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  Evolution, brain, and the nature of language , 2013, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[4]  Daniel Pressnitzer,et al.  Rapid Formation of Robust Auditory Memories: Insights from Noise , 2010, Neuron.

[5]  S. Anderson The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory , 2009 .

[6]  Willem H. Zuidema,et al.  Simple rules can explain discrimination of putative recursive syntactic structures by a songbird species , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[7]  Gabriel J. L. Beckers,et al.  Perceptual salience of acoustic differences between conspecific and allospecific vocalizations in African collared-doves , 2003, Animal Behaviour.

[8]  ROBERT C. BERWICK COMPUTATIONAL COMPLEXITY THEORY AND NATURAL LANGUAGE: A PARADOX RESOLVED , 1991 .

[9]  Pierre Perruchet,et al.  Synthetic Grammar Learning : Implicit Rule Abstraction or Explicit Fragmentary Knowledge ? Pierre Perruchet and Chantal Pacteau , 1990 .

[10]  Carel Ten Cate,et al.  Perceptual relevance of species-specific differences in acoustic signal structure in Streptopelia doves , 2001, Animal Behaviour.

[11]  Herbert Hoijtink,et al.  Moving Beyond Traditional Null Hypothesis Testing: Evaluating Expectations Directly , 2011, Front. Psychology.

[12]  Carel ten Cate,et al.  Rule learning by zebra finches in an artificial grammar learning task: which rule? , 2012, Animal Cognition.

[13]  Kenny Smith,et al.  Mixed‐complexity artificial grammar learning in humans and macaque monkeys: evaluating learning strategies , 2015, The European journal of neuroscience.

[14]  W. Marslen-Wilson,et al.  Auditory sequence processing reveals evolutionarily conserved regions of frontal cortex in macaques and humans , 2015, Nature Communications.

[15]  Kazuo Okanoya,et al.  Birdsong neurolinguistics: songbird context-free grammar claim is premature , 2012, Neuroreport.

[16]  Carel ten Cate,et al.  Zebra finches can use positional and transitional cues to distinguish vocal element strings , 2015, Behavioural Processes.

[17]  Kentaro Abe,et al.  Songbirds possess the spontaneous ability to discriminate syntactic rules , 2011, Nature Neuroscience.

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

[19]  Elisabetta Versace,et al.  The apes’ edge: positional learning in chimpanzees and humans , 2010, Animal Cognition.

[20]  Carel Ten Cate,et al.  Budgerigars and zebra finches differ in how they generalize in an artificial grammar learning experiment , 2016, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[21]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  Structures, Not Strings: Linguistics as Part of the Cognitive Sciences , 2015, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

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

[23]  Carel ten Cate,et al.  Zebra finches are able to learn affixation-like patterns , 2015, Animal Cognition.

[24]  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.