Implicit learning of conjunctive rule sets: An alternative to artificial grammars

Abstract

A single experiment is reported that investigated implicit learning using a conjunctive rule set applied to natural words. Participants memorized a training list consisting of words that were either rare-concrete and common-abstract or common-concrete and rare-abstract. At test, they were told of the rule set, but not told what it was. Instead, they were shown all four word types and asked to classify words as rule-consistent words or not. Participants classified the items above chance, but were unable to verbalize the rules, even when shown a list that included the categories that made up the conjunctive rule and asked to select them. Most participants identified familiarity as the reason for classifying the items as they did. An analysis of the materials demonstrated that conscious micro rules (i.e., chunk knowledge) could not have driven performance. We propose that such materials offer an alternative to artificial grammar for studies of implicit learning.

Tonal Symmetry Induces Fluency and Sense of Well-Formedness

“…Conversely, structural knowledge is clearly conscious if people could state the rules or recollections they used to classify a test stimulus. Thus, after each classification decision, participants were required to state the basis of that classification, whether it was based on random responding, feelings of intuition or familiarity, or rules or recollections (for previous use of these measures see also e.g., Hamrick and Rebuschat, 2012 ; Kiyokawa et al, 2012 ; Neil and Higham, 2012 ; Norman and Price, 2012 ; Williams and Rebuschat, 2012 ; Kemény and Lukács, 2013 ; Li et al, 2013 ; Rebuschat et al, 2013 ).…”

Role of prior knowledge in implicit and explicit learning of artificial grammars

“…In terms of grammaticality, we found evidence only of explicit knowledge. Dienes andLonguet-Higgins (2004), Jiang et al (2012), Kuhn and Dienes (2005), Li et al (2013), Neil and Higham (2012), and Rebuschat and Williams (2009) obtained implicit knowledge of grammaticality independently of chunk similarity. Thus, it seems that, in general, both grammaticality and similarity knowledge can be learnt implicitly, depending on context.…”

“…In this study, the implicitness of the structural knowledge was assessed with Dienes and Scott's (2005) method, which asks participants to specify the basis of their classifications, by choosing among different knowledge attributions (e.g., intuition, memory; Guo et al, 2011;Hamrick & Rebuschat, 2012;Neil & Higham, 2012;Norman & Price, 2012). These attributions allowed us to assess whether, when each of our three knowledge types (i.e., general knowledge relations, grammaticality, chunk strength) influenced participants' judgments, there was explicit (conscious) knowledge of what that structure was or that it was a particular structure motivating the judgment.…”

Third graders’ verbal reports of multiplication strategy use: How valid are they?

“…Alibali (1999) and Broaders, Cook, Mitchell, and Goldin-Meadow (2007) reported that many third and fourth graders demonstrate an understanding of strategies for solving mathematical equivalence problems that they are unable to verbalise. Even adults are often able to perform tasks without being able to articulate how they have done this, a phenomenon that is well known in sequence and second language learning (e.g., Neil & Higham, 2012;Sanchez, Gobel, & Reber, 2010;Williams, 2005).…”