Using dual-task methodology to dissociate automatic from nonautomatic processes involved in artificial grammar learning.

Previous studies have suggested that both automatic and intentional processes contribute to the learning of grammar and fragment knowledge in artificial grammar learning (AGL) tasks. To explore the relative contribution of automatic and intentional processes to knowledge gained in AGL, we utilized dual-task methodology to dissociate automatic and intentional grammar- and fragment-based knowledge in AGL at both acquisition and at test. Both experiments used a balanced chunk strength grammar to assure an equal proportion of fragment cues (i.e., chunks) in grammatical and nongrammatical test items. In Experiment 1, participants engaged in a working memory dual-task either during acquisition, test, or both acquisition and test. The results showed that participants performing the dual-task during acquisition learned the artificial grammar as well as the single-task group, presumably by relying on automatic learning mechanisms. A working memory dual-task at test resulted in attenuated grammar performance, suggesting a role for intentional processes for the expression of grammatical learning at test. Experiment 2 explored the importance of perceptual cues by changing letters between the acquisition and test phase; unlike Experiment 1, there was no significant learning of grammatical information for participants under dual-task conditions in Experiment 2, suggesting that intentional processing is necessary for successful acquisition and expression of grammar-based knowledge under transfer conditions. In sum, it appears that some aspects of learning in AGL are indeed relatively automatic, although the expression of grammatical information and the learning of grammatical patterns when perceptual similarity is eliminated both appear to require explicit resources.

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

[2]  D. Kahneman,et al.  Attention and Effort , 1973 .

[3]  R. Mathews,et al.  Role of Implicit and Explicit Processes in Learning From Examples: A Synergistic Effect , 1989 .

[4]  J. R. Vokey,et al.  Abstract analogies and positive transfer in artificial grammar learning. , 2005, Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale.

[5]  D. Shanks IMPLICIT LEARNING AND TACIT KNOWLEDGE - AN ESSAY ON THE COGNITIVE UNCONSCIOUS - REBER,A , 1995 .

[6]  L. Hasher,et al.  Automatic and effortful processes in memory. , 1979 .

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

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

[9]  B. W. Whittlesea,et al.  Implicit /explicit memory versus analytic/nonanalytic processing: Rethinking the mere exposure effect , 2001, Memory & cognition.

[11]  Emmanuel M. Pothos,et al.  Separate influences in learning: Evidence from artificial grammar learning with traumatic brain injury patients , 2009, Brain Research.

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

[13]  J. de Houwer,et al.  Automaticity: a theoretical and conceptual analysis. , 2006, Psychological bulletin.

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

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

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

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

[18]  Morten H. Christiansen,et al.  Timing is everything: Changes in presentation rate have opposite effects on auditory and visual implicit statistical learning , 2011, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[19]  F Gregory Ashby,et al.  Analogical transfer in perceptual categorization , 2011, Memory & Cognition.

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

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

[22]  Robert L. Goldstone,et al.  Spatial Constraints on Visual Statistical Learning of Multi-Element Scenes , 2007 .

[23]  Philip A. Higham,et al.  Chunks are not enough: the insufficiency of feature frequency-based explanations of artificial grammar learning (in special issue on music cognition and performance) , 1997 .

[24]  Pierre Perruchet,et al.  Synthetic grammar learning: Implicit rule abstraction or explicit fragmentary knowledge? Journal of , 1990 .

[25]  Gerry Altmann,et al.  Mapping across Domains Without Feedback: A Neural Network Model of Transfer of Implicit Knowledge , 1999, Cogn. Sci..

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

[27]  David L. Faigman,et al.  Human category learning. , 2005, Annual review of psychology.

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

[29]  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.

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

[31]  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.