Implicit Learning, Bilingualism, and Dyslexia: Insights From a Study Assessing AGL With a Modified Simon Task

Abstract

This paper presents an experimental study investigating artificial grammar learning in monolingual and bilingual children, with and without dyslexia, using an original methodology. We administered a serial reaction time task, in the form of a modified Simon task, in which the sequence of the stimuli was manipulated according to the rules of a simple Lindenmayer grammar (more specifically, a Fibonacci grammar). By ensuring that the subjects focused on the correct response execution at the motor stage in presence of congruent or incongruent visual stimuli, we could meet the two fundamental criteria for implicit learning: the absence of an intention to learn and the lack of awareness at the level of resulting knowledge. The participants of our studies were four groups of 10-year-old children: 30 Italian monolingual typically developing children, 30 bilingual typically developing children with Italian L2, 24 Italian monolingual dyslexic children, and 24 bilingual dyslexic children with Italian L2. Participants were administered the modified Simon task developed according to the rules of the Fibonacci grammar and tested with respect to the implicit learning of three regularities: (i) a red is followed by a blue, (ii) a sequence of two blues is followed by a red, and (iii) a blue can be followed either by a red or by a blue. Results clearly support the hypothesis that learning took place, since participants of all groups became increasingly sensitive to the structure of the input, implicitly learning the sequence of the trials and thus appropriately predicting the occurrence of the relevant items, as manifested by faster reaction times in predictable trials. Moreover, group differences were found, with bilinguals being overall faster than monolinguals and dyslexics less accurate than controls. Finally, an advantage of bilingualism in dyslexia was found, with bilingual dyslexics performing consistently better than monolingual dyslexics and, in some conditions, at the level of the two control groups. These results are taken to suggest that bilingualism should be supported also among linguistically impaired individuals.

Disentangling sequential from hierarchical learning in Artificial Grammar Learning: Evidence from a modified Simon Task

“…In contrast to the traditional Simon task, our modified version, as in [53], presents two major changes, concerning (i) the sequence of blue and red squares and (ii) the occurrence of the incongruent trials.…”

“…Some preliminary evidence for the robustness of implicit learning tasks featuring Fib has already been provided: in a pivotal research, [50,51] found that humans can discriminate between samples of true Fibonacci sequences and samples of foil sequences produced by means of n-gram substitution, up to substitution units of lengths 5 and 8; [52] found that participants were able to discriminate sequences of synthesised syllables following the Fibonacci grammar from random sequences with distributional properties matched to Fib. More recently, [53] found evidence of implicit learning in 10-year-old children (monolingual and bilingual children, with and without dyslexia), administering a modified Simon task developed following Fib's Three Laws. As in traditional Simon tasks, children were simply asked to press 1 (i.e.…”

“…In light of what argued above, our study was designed to address specific research questions. First, we wanted to verify whether participants learnt the First and the Second Law outlined in (2) above: (i) the fact that a [0] is always followed by a [1] and (ii) the fact that the bigram [11] is always followed by a [0], even with a relatively low number of stimuli with respect to the study by [53]. Since these superficial regularities hold for both Fib and Skip, no differences were expected between the two grammars.…”

“…Finally, the second modification of our task was that, consistent with the traditional Simon task, there were also incongruent trials, which occurred at regular intervals every sixth item, as in [53], with the aim of reducing the conflict with the congruent trials, by making incongruent trials statistically predictable. The presence of the incongruent items is however not directly relevant for the purposes of our study: they just contributed to keep the task engaging for the participants, avoiding boredom.…”

“…The presence of the incongruent items is however not directly relevant for the purposes of our study: they just contributed to keep the task engaging for the participants, avoiding boredom. Presenting them at a regular (and not too short) interval limited the effort required to inhibit the tendency to press the key on the same side of the item appeared on the screen [53].…”