Artificial Grammar Learning Capabilities in an Abstract Visual Task Match Requirements for Linguistic Syntax

Whether pattern-parsing mechanisms are specific to language or apply across multiple cognitive domains remains unresolved. Formal language theory provides a mathematical framework for classifying pattern-generating rule sets (or “grammars”) according to complexity. This framework applies to patterns at any level of complexity, stretching from simple sequences, to highly complex tree-like or net-like structures, to any Turing-computable set of strings. Here, we explored human pattern-processing capabilities in the visual domain by generating abstract visual sequences made up of abstract tiles differing in form and color. We constructed different sets of sequences, using artificial “grammars” (rule sets) at three key complexity levels. Because human linguistic syntax is classed as “mildly context-sensitive,” we specifically included a visual grammar at this complexity level. Acquisition of these three grammars was tested in an artificial grammar-learning paradigm: after exposure to a set of well-formed strings, participants were asked to discriminate novel grammatical patterns from non-grammatical patterns. Participants successfully acquired all three grammars after only minutes of exposure, correctly generalizing to novel stimuli and to novel stimulus lengths. A Bayesian analysis excluded multiple alternative hypotheses and shows that the success in rule acquisition applies both at the group level and for most participants analyzed individually. These experimental results demonstrate rapid pattern learning for abstract visual patterns, extending to the mildly context-sensitive level characterizing language. We suggest that a formal equivalence of processing at the mildly context sensitive level in the visual and linguistic domains implies that cognitive mechanisms with the computational power to process linguistic syntax are not specific to the domain of language, but extend to abstract visual patterns with no meaning.

[1]  E. Luby.  On the nature of memory. , 1966, Michigan medicine.

[2]  R N Aslin,et al.  Statistical Learning by 8-Month-Old Infants , 1996, Science.

[3]  Peter M. Vishton,et al.  Rule learning by seven-month-old infants. , 1999, Science.

[4]  Sophia Rabe-Hesketh,et al.  Redundant Overdispersion Parameters in Multilevel Models for Categorical Responses , 2007 .

[5]  A. Gelman.  Prior distributions for variance parameters in hierarchical models (comment on article by Browne and Draper) , 2004 .

[6]  Kazuo Okanoya,et al.  Revisiting the syntactic abilities of non-human animals: natural vocalizations and artificial grammar learning , 2012, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

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

[8]  Stuart M. Shieber,et al.  Evidence against the context-freeness of natural language , 1985 .

[9]  Elissa L. Newport,et al.  The role of constituent structure in the induction of an artificial language , 1981 .

[10]  P. Diggle.  Analysis of Longitudinal Data , 1995 .

[11]  W. Tecumseh Fitch,et al.  Action at a distance: dependency sensitivity in a New World primate , 2013, Biology Letters.

[12]  W Tecumseh Fitch,et al.  Toward a computational framework for cognitive biology: unifying approaches from cognitive neuroscience and comparative cognition. , 2014, Physics of life reviews.

[13]  Alaa A. Kharbouch,et al.  Three models for the description of language , 1956, IRE Trans. Inf. Theory.

[14]  Matthias Sebastian Treder,et al.  Behind the Looking-Glass: A Review on Human Symmetry Perception , 2010, Symmetry.

[15]  W. Tecumseh Fitch,et al.  Visual artificial grammar learning: comparative research on humans, kea (Nestor notabilis) and pigeons (Columba livia) , 2012, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[16]  Aravind K. Joshi,et al.  Processing crossed and nested dependencies: An automation perspective on the psycholinguistic results , 1990 .

[17]  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.

[18]  Peter Hagoort,et al.  Implicit Acquisition of Grammars With Crossed and Nested Non-Adjacent Dependencies: Investigating the Push-Down Stack Model , 2012, Cogn. Sci..

[19]  Richard B. D’Eath,et al.  Can video images imitate real stimuli in animal behaviour experiments? , 1998 .

[20]  Morten H. Christiansen,et al.  Processing multiple non-adjacent dependencies: evidence from sequence learning , 2012, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[21]  William A. Link,et al.  On thinning of chains in MCMC , 2012 .

[22]  Edward P. Stabler,et al.  Varieties of crossing dependencies: structure dependence and mild context sensitivity , 2004, Cogn. Sci..

[23]  J. Saffran,et al.  Dog is a dog is a dog: Infant rule learning is not specific to language , 2007, Cognition.

[24]  W. Fitch,et al.  Non-adjacent visual dependency learning in chimpanzees , 2015, Animal Cognition.

[25]  Esther Mondragón,et al.  Rule Learning by Rats , 2008, Science.

[26]  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.

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

[28]  S. Dehaene,et al.  Cortical representation of the constituent structure of sentences , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

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

[30]  Carlo Geraci,et al.  How grammar can cope with limited short-term memory: Simultaneity and seriality in sign languages , 2008, Cognition.

[31]  W. Fitch,et al.  More than one way to see it: Individual heuristics in avian visual computation , 2015, Cognition.

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

[33]  F. Pulvermüller.  Brain embodiment of syntax and grammar: Discrete combinatorial mechanisms spelt out in neuronal circuits , 2010, Brain and Language.

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

[35]  L R Squire,et al.  Intact learning of artificial grammars and intact category learning by patients with Parkinson's disease. , 1999, Behavioral neuroscience.

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

[37]  P. Hagoort.  On Broca, brain, and binding: a new framework , 2005, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[38]  M. Wand,et al.  General design Bayesian generalized linear mixed models , 2006, math/0606491.

[39]  William D. Marslen-Wilson,et al.  Crossed and nested dependencies in German and Dutch , 1986 .

[40]  Jarrod Had.  MCMC Methods for Multi-Response Generalized Linear Mixed Models: The MCMCglmm R Package , 2010 .

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

[42]  Andrew Gelman,et al.  Why We (Usually) Don't Have to Worry About Multiple Comparisons , 2009, 0907.2478.

[43]  Birgit Öttl,et al.  Does Formal Complexity Reflect Cognitive Complexity? Investigating Aspects of the Chomsky Hierarchy in an Artificial Language Learning Study , 2015, PloS one.

[44]  Willem H. Zuidema.  Context-freeness Revisited , 2013, CogSci.

[45]  P. Niyogi,et al.  Computational and evolutionary aspects of language , 2002, Nature.

[46]  Johan Wagemans,et al.  Characteristics and models of human symmetry detection , 1997, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[47]  Elizabeth K. Johnson,et al.  Statistical learning of tone sequences by human infants and adults , 1999, Cognition.

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

[49]  Karsten Steinhauer,et al.  Brain signatures of artificial language processing: Evidence challenging the critical period hypothesis , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[50]  James Rogers,et al.  Formal language theory: refining the Chomsky hierarchy , 2012, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[51]  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.

[52]  Zoltan Dienes,et al.  The nature of the memory buffer in implicit learning: Learning Chinese tonal symmetries , 2013, Consciousness and Cognition.

[53]  Shinichi Nakagawa,et al.  Repeatability for Gaussian and non‐Gaussian data: a practical guide for biologists , 2010, Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

[54]  William J. Idsardi,et al.  What Complexity Differences Reveal About Domains in Language , 2013, Top. Cogn. Sci..

[55]  Jeffrey Heinz,et al.  Sentence and Word Complexity , 2011, Science.