Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Implicit learning is order dependent

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Psychological Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We report two experiments using the artificial-grammar task that demonstrate order dependence in implicit learning. Studying grammatical training strings in different orders did not affect participants’ discrimination of grammatical from ungrammatical test strings, but it did affect their judgments about specific test strings. Current accounts of learning in the artificial-grammar task focus on category-level discrimination and largely ignore item-level discrimination. Hence, the results highlight the importance of moving theory from a category- to an item-level of analysis and point to a new way to evaluate and to refine accounts of implicit learning.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Brooks, L. R. (1978). Nonanalytic concept formation and memory for instances. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. 170–211). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, L. R., & Vokey, J. (1991). Abstract analogies and abstracted grammars: comments on Reber (1989) and Mathews et al. (1989). Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 120, 316–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chubala, C. M., & Jamieson, R. K. (2013). Recoding and representation in artificial grammar learning. Behavior Research Methods, 45, 470–479.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dienes, Z. (1992). Connectionist and memory-array models of artificial grammar learning. Cognitive Science, 16, 41–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dulany, D. E., Carlson, R. A., & Dewey, G. I. (1984). A case of syntactical learning and judgement: how conscious and how abstract? Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 113, 541–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, J. C. (2008). The dimensionality of the remember-know task: a state-trace analysis. Psychological Review, 2008(115), 426–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, J. C., & Kirsner, K. (1988). Discovering functionally independent mental processes: the principle of reversed association. Psychological Review, 95, 91–101.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, J. C., & Kirsner, K. (2003). What can we infer from double dissociations? Cortex, 39, 1–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Herbranson, W. T., & Shimp, C. P. (2008). Artificial grammar learning in pigeons. Learning and Behavior, 36, 116–137.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Higham, P. A., & Vokey, J. R. (1994). Recourse to stored exemplars is not necessarily explicit: a comment on Knowlton, Ramus, and Squire (1992). Psychological Science, 5, 59–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jamieson, R. K., Crump, M. J. C., & Hannah, S. D. (2012). An instance theory of associative learning. Learning and Behavior, 40, 61–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jamieson, R. K., & Hauri, B. R. (2012). An exemplar model of performance in the artificial grammar task: holographic representation. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 98–105.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jamieson, R. K., Holmes, S., & Mewhort, D. J. K. (2010). Global similarity predicts dissociation of classification and recognition: evidence questioning the implicit-explicit learning distinction in amnesia. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition, 36, 1529–1535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jamieson, R. K., & Mewhort, D. J. K. (2009). Applying an exemplar model to the artificial-grammar task: inferring grammaticality from similarity. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 550–575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jamieson, R. K., & Mewhort, D. J. K. (2010). Applying an exemplar model to the artificial-grammar task: string-completion and performance on individual items. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 1014–1039.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jamieson, R. K., & Mewhort, D. J. K. (2011). Grammaticality is inferred from global similarity: a reply to Kinder (2010). Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 209–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jamieson, R. K., Nevzorova, U., Lee, G., & Mewhort, D. J. K. (2015). Information theory and artificial grammar learning: Inferring grammaticality from redundancy. Psyc hological Research. [Epub ahead of print]

  • Johns, E. E., & Mewhort, D. J. K. (2002). What information underlies correct rejections in recognition from episodic memory? Memory and Cognition, 30, 46–59.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Johns, E. E., & Mewhort, D. J. K. (2003). The effect of feature frequency on short-term recognition memory. Memory and Cognition, 31, 285–296.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Johns, E. E., & Mewhort, D. J. K. (2009). Test sequence priming in recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition, 35, 1162–1174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johns, E. E., & Mewhort, D. J. K. (2011). Serial-position effects for lures in short-term recognition memory. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 18, 1126–1132.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Johnstone, T., & Shanks, D. R. (2001). Abstractionist and processing accounts of implicit learning. Cognitive Psychology, 42, 61–112.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kamin, L. J. (1969). Predictability, surprise, attention and conditioning. In B. A. Campbell & R. M. Church (Eds.), Punishment and aversive behavior (pp. 279–296). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinder, A. (2010). Is grammaticality inferred from global similarity? Comment on Jamieson and Mewhort (2009). Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 1049–1056.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kinder, A., & Shanks, D. R. (2001). Amnesia and the declarative/nondeclarative distinction: a recurrent network model of classification, recognition, and repetition priming. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15, 648–669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kinder, A., & Shanks, D. R. (2003). Neuropsychological dissociations between priming and recognition: a single-system connectionist account. Psychological Review, 110, 728–744.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Knowlton, B. J., Ramus, S. J., & Squire, L. R. (1992). Intact artificial grammar learning in amnesia: dissociation of classification learning and explicit memory for specific instances. Psychological Science, 3, 172–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lotz, A., & Kinder, A. (2006). Transfer in artificial grammar learning: the role of repetition information. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition, 32, 707–715.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manza, L., & Reber, A. S. (1997). Representing artificial grammars: transfer across stimulus forms and modalities. In D. C. Berry (Ed.), How implicit is implicit learning? (pp. 73–106). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mewhort, D. J. K., & Johns, E. E. (2000). The extralist-feature effect: a test of item matching in short-term recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 262–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mewhort, D. J. K., & Johns, E. E. (2005). Sharpening the echo: an iterative-resonance model for short-term recognition memory. Memory, 13, 300–307.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, G. A. (1958). Free recall of redundant strings of letters. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56, 433–491.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, R. R. (2006). Challenges facing contemporary associative approaches to acquired behavior. Comparative Cognition and Behavior Reviews, 1, 77–93.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Nosofsky, R. M. (1986). Attention, similarity, and the identification-categorization relationship. Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 115, 39–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nosofsky, R. M., & Zaki, S. R. (1998). Dissociations between categorization and recognition in amnesic and normal individuals: an exemplar-based interpretation. Psychological Science, 9, 247–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perruchet, P., & Pacteau, C. (1990). Synthetic grammar learning: implicit rule abstraction or explicit fragmentary knowledge? Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 119, 264–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perruchet, P., & Vinter, A. (1998). PARSER: a model for word segmentation. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 246–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poletiek, F. H., & Lai, J. (2012). How semantic biases in simple adjacencies affect learning a complex structure with non-adjacencies in AGL: a statistical account. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 367, 2046–2054.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poletiek, F. H., & van Schijndel, T. J. P. (2009). Stimulus set size and grammar coverage in artificial grammar learning. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 16, 1058–1064.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pothos, E. M. (2005). The rules versus similarity distinction. Behavioral and Brain Science, 28, 1–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pothos, E. M., & Bailey, T. M. (2000). The importance of similarity in artificial grammar learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition, 26, 847–862.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ratcliff, R. (1990). Connectionist models of recognition memory: constraints imposed by learning and forgetting functions. Psychological Review, 97, 285–308.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Reber, A. S. (1967). Implicit learning of artificial grammars. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 5, 855–863.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reber, A. S. (1969). Transfer of syntactic structure in synthetic languages. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81, 115–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reber, P. J. (2002). Attempting to model dissociations of memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 192–194.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Reber, A. S., Kassin, S. M., Lewis, S., & Cantor, G. (1980). On the relationship between implicit and explicit modes in the learning of a complex rule structure. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Learning and Memory, 6, 492–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reber, R., & Perruchet, P. (2003). The use of control groups in artificial grammar learning. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56, 97–113.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Redington, M., & Chater, N. (1996). Transfer in artificial grammar learning: a reevaluation. Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 125, 123–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rotello, C. M., Macmillan, N. A., & Van Tassel, G. (2000). Recall-to-reject in recognition memory: evidence from ROC curves. Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 67–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schiff, R., & Katan, P. (2014). Does complexity matter? Meta analysis of learner performance in artificial grammar tasks. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1084.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Servan-Schreiber, E., & Anderson, J. R. (1990). Learning artificial grammars with competitive chunking. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition, 16, 592–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shanks, D. R. (1985). Forward and backward blocking in human contingency judgement. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 37, 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shanks, D. R. (2010). Learning: from association to cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 273–301.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shanks, D. R., & St. John, M. F. (1994). Characteristics of dissociable human learning systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 17, 367–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tunney, R. J., & Altmann, G. T. M. (1999). The transfer effect in artificial grammar learning: reappraising the evidence of transfer of sequential dependencies. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition, 25, 1322–1333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van den Bos, E., & Poletiek, F. H. (2008). Intentional artificial grammar learning: when does it work? European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 4, 793–806.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Orden, G. C., & Kloos, H. (2003). The module mistake. Cortex, 39, 164–166.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Van Orden, G. C., Pennington, B. F., & Stone, G. O. (2001). What do double dissociations prove? Cognitive Science, 25, 111–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vokey, J. R., & Brooks, L. R. (1992). Salience of item knowledge in learning artificial grammars. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition, 18, 328–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vokey, J. R., & Higham, P. A. (1999). Implicit knowledge as automatic, latent knowledge. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 787–788.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vokey, J. R., & Higham, P. A. (2004). Opposition logic and neural network models in artificial grammar learning. Consciousness and Cognition, 13, 565–578.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vokey, J. R., & Higham, P. A. (2005). Abstract analogies and positive transfer in artificial grammar learning. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 54–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vokey, J. R., & Jamieson, R. K. (2014). A visual familiarity account of evidence for orthographic processing in baboons (Papio papio). Psychological Science, 25, 991–996.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Whittlesea, B. W., & Wright, R. L. (1997). Implicit (and explicit) learning: acting adaptively without knowing the consequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition, 23, 181–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaki, S. R., & Nosofsky, R. M. (2001). A single-system interpretation of dissociations between recognition and categorization in a task involving object-like stimuli. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 1, 344–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by grants from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada to all three authors. We thank Steve Lindsay for advice on the statistical analysis.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, R3T 2N2, Canada

    Randall K. Jamieson

  2. University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, Canada

    John R. Vokey

  3. Queen’s University at Kingston, Kingston, Canada

    D. J. K. Mewhort

Authors
  1. Randall K. Jamieson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John R. Vokey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. D. J. K. Mewhort
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Randall K. Jamieson.

Appendix

Appendix

See Tables 9 and 10.

Table 9 Experiment 1: item-level percent endorsement rates (items 1–20 are grammatical; items 21–40 are ungrammatical)
Full size table
Table 10 Experiment 2: item-level percent endorsement rates (items 1–23 are grammatical; items 24–46 are ungrammatical)
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jamieson, R.K., Vokey, J.R. & Mewhort, D.J.K. Implicit learning is order dependent. Psychological Research 81, 204–218 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-015-0715-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-015-0715-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation