Cross-Situational Learning Is Supported by Propose-but-Verify Hypothesis Testing

Berens, Sam C.; Horst, Jessica S.; Bird, Chris M.

doi:10.1016/j.cub.2018.02.042

Cited by 50 publications

(58 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our observations are consistent with the latter account, that is, the hippocampus is not strictly necessary for statistical learning-even when the statistics describe arbitrary relations between elements. Our findings also converge with neuroimaging results from Berens et al (2018) which indicated that rapid binding of representations in the hippocampus may enhance CSSL in healthy adults.…”

Section: Statistical Learning and The Hippocampussupporting

confidence: 89%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Cross-Situational Statistical Learning of New Words Despite Bilateral Hippocampal Damage and Severe Amnesia

Warren

Roembke

Covington

et al. 2020

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Word learning requires learners to bind together arbitrarily-related phonological, visual, and conceptual information. Prior work suggests that this binding can be robustly achieved via incidental cross-situational statistical exposure to words and referents. When cross-situational statistical learning (CSSL) is tested in the laboratory, there is no information on any given trial to identify the referent of a novel word. However, by tracking which objects co-occur with each word across trials, learners may acquire mappings through statistical association. While CSSL behavior is well-characterized, its brain correlates are not. The arbitrary nature of CSSL mappings suggests hippocampal involvement, but the incremental, statistical nature of the learning raises the possibility of neocortical or procedural learning systems. Prior studies have shown that neurological patients with hippocampal pathology have word-learning impairments, but this has not been tested in a statistical learning paradigm. Here, we used a neuropsychological approach to test whether patients with bilateral hippocampal pathology (N = 3) could learn new words in a CSSL paradigm. In the task, patients and healthy comparison participants completed a CSSL word-learning task in which they acquired eight word/object mappings. During each trial of the CSSL task, participants saw two objects on a computer display, heard one novel word, and selected the most likely referent. Across trials, words were 100% likely to co-occur with their referent, but only 14.3% likely with non-referents. Two of three amnesic patients learned the associations between objects and word forms, although performance was impaired relative to healthy comparison participants. Our findings show that the hippocampus is not strictly necessary for CSSL for words, although it may facilitate such learning. This is consistent with a hybrid account of CSSL supported by implicit and explicit memory systems, and may have translational applications for remediation of (word-) learning deficits in neurological populations with hippocampal pathology.

show abstract

Section: Statistical Learning and The Hippocampussupporting

confidence: 89%

“…This suggests that hippocampus is not strictly necessary for ecological word learning. A recent study by Berens et al (2018) studied CSSL in neurotypical adults using functional MRI. They found evidence for a quick learning mechanism that is consistent with rapid pattern separation processes in the hippocampus.…”

Section: Brain Correlates Of Statistical Learningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cross-Situational Statistical Learning of New Words Despite Bilateral Hippocampal Damage and Severe Amnesia

Warren

Roembke

Covington

et al. 2020

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our moderation of all of the learning effects by condition are clearly in line with such a component. Moreover, a recent study by Berens, Horst, and Bird (2018) reported that activity in the hippocampus was more predictive of cross-situational word learning than activity in other brain areas. These findings suggest a clear explicit component as well.…”

Section: Interactions Of Explicit and Implicit Learning Processes Durmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interactions of explicit and implicit learning mechanisms in cross-situational word learning

Roembke¹,

McMurray²

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Both explicit and implicit learning processes contribute to cross-situational word learning (e.g., Roembke & McMurray, 2016; Warren et al., 2019). However, it is unclear how these learning processes interact, and if any specific aspect of cross-situational word learning is purely explicit. To investigate this, participants completed cross-situational word learning trials as well as a memory task that required remembering five (high-load) or only one (low-load) number in a between-subject, dual-task paradigm. This allowed us to manipulate whether working memory resources were available for explicit processing or not. Further, we used trial-by-trial analyses to estimate how different learning effects that are thought to map onto either explicit or implicit learning processes are affected by condition. Word learning accuracy was lower in the high-load than in the low-load condition; this was likely driven by performance late in the experiment. Moreover, both the more explicit and implicit effects were reduced when limiting working memory resources, suggesting that neither is purely the result of or independent of explicit learning processes. Consistent with a hybrid account, these findings indicate that explicit and implicit learning processes do not compete, but rather support each other, during cross-situational word learning.

show abstract

“…Analyses that test for specific patterns of activity, such as correlations of voxels with a behavioural measure, or cognitive model of interest will be less affected by the different neurovascular coupling properties in HC and V1 37 , but the relative insensitivity may nevertheless lead to more failures to detect subtle effects in HC than in neocortex 38 .…”

Section: Low Tissue Oxygenation and Weak Neurovascular Coupling: A Pementioning

confidence: 99%

Hippocampus has lower oxygenation and weaker control of brain blood flow than cortex, due to microvascular differences

Shaw

Bell

Boyd

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The hippocampus is essential for spatial and episodic memory but is damaged early in Alzheimer's disease and is very sensitive to hypoxia. Understanding how it regulates its oxygen supply is therefore key for designing interventions to preserve its function. However, studies of neurovascular function in the hippocampus in vivo have been limited by its relative inaccessibility.Here we compared hippocampal and visual cortical neurovascular function in awake mice, using two photon imaging of individual neurons and vessels and measures of regional blood flow and haemoglobin oxygenation. We show that blood flow, blood oxygenation and neurovascular coupling were decreased in the hippocampus compared to neocortex, because of differences in both the vascular network and pericyte and endothelial cell function. Modelling oxygen diffusion indicates that these features of the hippocampal vasculature could explain its sensitivity to damage during neurological conditions, including Alzheimer's disease, where the brain's energy supply is decreased.

show abstract

Cross-Situational Learning Is Supported by Propose-but-Verify Hypothesis Testing

Cited by 50 publications

References 42 publications

Cross-Situational Statistical Learning of New Words Despite Bilateral Hippocampal Damage and Severe Amnesia

Cross-Situational Statistical Learning of New Words Despite Bilateral Hippocampal Damage and Severe Amnesia

Interactions of explicit and implicit learning mechanisms in cross-situational word learning

Hippocampus has lower oxygenation and weaker control of brain blood flow than cortex, due to microvascular differences

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About