Exploring Variation Between Artificial Grammar Learning Experiments: Outlining a Meta‐Analysis Approach

Abstract Artificial grammar learning (AGL) has become an important tool used to understand aspects of human language learning and whether the abilities underlying learning may be unique to humans or found in other species. Successful learning is typically assumed when human or animal participants are able to distinguish stimuli generated by the grammar from those that are not at a level better than chance. However, the question remains as to what subjects actually learn in these experiments. Previous studies of AGL have frequently introduced multiple potential contributors to performance in the training and testing stimuli, but meta‐analysis techniques now enable us to consider these multiple information sources for their contribution to learning—enabling intended and unintended structures to be assessed simultaneously. We present a blueprint for meta‐analysis approaches to appraise the effect of learning in human and other animal studies for a series of artificial grammar learning experiments, focusing on studies that examine auditory and visual modalities. We identify a series of variables that differ across these studies, focusing on both structural and surface properties of the grammar, and characteristics of training and test regimes, and provide a first step in assessing the relative contribution of these design features of artificial grammars as well as species‐specific effects for learning.

[1]  W. Fitch,et al.  Computational Constraints on Syntactic Processing in a Nonhuman Primate , 2004, Science.

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

[3]  Jutta L. Mueller,et al.  Learnability of Embedded Syntactic Structures Depends on Prosodic Cues , 2010, Cogn. Sci..

[4]  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.

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

[6]  B. Wilson,et al.  Structured sequence learning across sensory modalities in humans and nonhuman primates , 2018, Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences.

[7]  Philip Sedgwick,et al.  Effect sizes , 2012, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[8]  J. Saffran The Use of Predictive Dependencies in Language Learning , 2001 .

[9]  D. Moher,et al.  Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement , 2009, BMJ.

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

[11]  Padraic Monaghan,et al.  Sleep-Driven Computations in Speech Processing , 2017, PloS one.

[12]  A. Sutton,et al.  Comparison of two methods to detect publication bias in meta-analysis. , 2006, JAMA.

[13]  R. Gómez,et al.  Artificial grammar learning by 1-year-olds leads to specific and abstract knowledge , 1999, Cognition.

[14]  Inge-Marie Eigsti,et al.  Auditory access, language access, and implicit sequence learning in deaf children. , 2018, Developmental science.

[15]  Robert C. Berwick,et al.  What do animals learn in artificial grammar studies? , 2017, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews.

[16]  Timothy D. Griffiths,et al.  Artificial grammar learning in vascular and progressive non-fluent aphasias , 2017, Neuropsychologia.

[17]  Morten H. Christiansen,et al.  Bridging artificial and natural language learning: Comparing processing- and reflection-based measures of learning , 2018, CogSci.

[18]  Ferenc Kemény,et al.  Stimulus dependence and cross-modal interference in sequence learning , 2017, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[19]  G. Miller,et al.  Free recall of redundant strings of letters. , 1958, Journal of experimental psychology.

[20]  A. Reber Implicit learning of artificial grammars , 1967 .

[21]  Angela D. Friederici,et al.  Hierarchical artificial grammar processing engages Broca's area , 2008, NeuroImage.

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

[23]  A. Rey,et al.  Does the mastery of center-embedded linguistic structures distinguish humans from nonhuman primates? , 2005, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[24]  A. Endress,et al.  Rapid learning of syllable classes from a perceptually continuous speech stream , 2007, Cognition.

[25]  A. D. Friederici,et al.  The neurobiological nature of syntactic hierarchies , 2017, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews.

[26]  Larry V. Hedges,et al.  Effect Sizes Based on Means , 2009, Introduction to Meta‐Analysis.

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

[28]  Angela D. Friederici,et al.  Artificial grammar learning meets formal language theory: an overview , 2012, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[29]  Guido Knapp,et al.  Improved tests for a random effects meta‐regression with a single covariate , 2003, Statistics in medicine.

[30]  Wolfgang Viechtbauer,et al.  Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the metafor Package , 2010 .

[31]  J. Neiworth,et al.  Artificial Grammar Learning in Tamarins (Saguinus oedipus) in Varying Stimulus Contexts , 2017, Journal of comparative psychology.

[32]  Jun Lai,et al.  The impact of adjacent-dependencies and staged-input on the learnability of center-embedded hierarchical structures , 2011, Cognition.

[33]  Frank Wijnen,et al.  Non‐adjacent Dependency Learning in Humans and Other Animals , 2018, Top. Cogn. Sci..

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

[35]  Morten H. Christiansen,et al.  Implicit Statistical Learning: A Tale of Two Literatures , 2019, Top. Cogn. Sci..

[36]  D. Bishop,et al.  Assessing understanding of relative clauses: a comparison of multiple-choice comprehension versus sentence repetition* , 2017, Journal of Child Language.

[37]  G. Cumming,et al.  The New Statistics , 2014, Psychological science.

[38]  Morten H. Christiansen,et al.  Visual artificial grammar learning by rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta): exploring the role of grammar complexity and sequence length , 2018, Animal Cognition.

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

[40]  Antje S. Meyer,et al.  EMPIRICAL STUDY Concurrent Statistical Learning of Adjacent and Nonadjacent Dependencies , 2016 .

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

[42]  Morten H. Christiansen,et al.  Domain generality versus modality specificity: the paradox of statistical learning , 2015, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[43]  Angela D. Friederici,et al.  Fronto-Parietal Contributions to Phonological Processes in Successful Artificial Grammar Learning , 2016, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[44]  R. Peereman,et al.  Learning Nonadjacent Dependencies: No Need for Algebraic-like Computations Is It Possible to Learn the Relation between 2 Nonadjacent Events? , 2004 .

[45]  Christopher M. Conway,et al.  Concurrent Learning of Adjacent and Nonadjacent Dependencies in Visuo-Spatial and Visuo-Verbal Sequences , 2019, Front. Psychol..

[46]  Frank Wijnen,et al.  Visual artificial grammar learning in dyslexia: A meta-analysis. , 2017, Research in Developmental Disabilities.

[47]  Hannah R Rothstein,et al.  A basic introduction to fixed‐effect and random‐effects models for meta‐analysis , 2010, Research synthesis methods.

[48]  Magnus Enquist,et al.  Memory for stimulus sequences: a divide between humans and other animals? , 2017, Royal Society Open Science.

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

[50]  Timothy Q. Gentner,et al.  Recursive syntactic pattern learning by songbirds , 2006, Nature.

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

[52]  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.

[53]  Spyros Konstantopoulos,et al.  Fixed effects and variance components estimation in three‐level meta‐analysis , 2011, Research synthesis methods.

[54]  Carel ten Cate,et al.  Selective auditory grouping by zebra finches: testing the iambic–trochaic law , 2017, Animal Cognition.

[55]  Pienie Zwitserlood,et al.  Syntactic structure and artificial grammar learning: The learnability of embedded hierarchical structures , 2008, Cognition.

[56]  C. Locurto,et al.  Implicit learning in cotton-top tamarins (Saguinus oedipus) and pigeons (Columba livia) , 2015, Learning & Behavior.

[57]  Padraic Monaghan,et al.  Simultaneous segmentation and generalisation of non-adjacent dependencies from continuous speech , 2016, Cognition.

[58]  Carel ten Cate,et al.  Pauses enhance chunk recognition in song element strings by zebra finches , 2015, Animal Cognition.

[59]  D J K Mewhort,et al.  The influence of grammatical, local, and organizational redundancy on implicit learning: an analysis using information theory. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[60]  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.