Memory & Cognition

, Volume 36, Issue 8, pp 1509–1514 | Cite as

The effect of repetition and similarity on sequence learning

Article

Abstract

Repetition is a pervasive feature of children’s environments, and may be an important contributor to learning such complex sequential structures as language. Endress, Dehaene-Lambertz, and Mehler (2007) found that repeated tone sequences were learned more easily than sequences containing ordinal relations, but there have been no direct comparisons of repeating sequences versus sequences that contain similar, but not identical, stimuli. In Experiment 1, we compared learning from repeating tone sequences to learning from tones that varied in similarity, and confirmed that repetition is a special case for learning. In Experiment 2 we showed that the learning distinction between repeated and similar elements is not affected by whether similarity is variable. We conclude by indicating that repetition provides an important constraint on learning, and we discuss the extent to which such constraints are consistent with general-purpose statistical learning mechanisms.

References

  1. Altmann, G. T. M. (2002). Learning and development in neural networks— the importance of prior experience. Cognition, 85, B43-B50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bonatti, L. L., Peña, M., Nespor, M., & Mehler, J. (2005). Linguistic constraints on statistical computations: The role of consonants and vowels in continuous speech processing. Psychological Science, 16, 451–459.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Botvinick, M., & Plaut, D. C. (2006). Short-term memory for serial order: A recurrent neural network model. Psychological Review, 113, 201–233.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Endress, A. D., Dehaene-Lambertz, G., & Mehler, J. (2007). Perceptual constraints and the learnability of simple grammars. Cognition, 105, 577–614.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Gómez, R. (2002). Variability and detection of invariant structure. Psychological Science, 13, 431–436.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Harris, R. W. (1985). Perceived relatedness of musical tones in major and minor tonal contexts. American Journal of Psychology, 98, 605–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Henson, R. N. A. (1998). Item repetition in short-term memory: Ranschburg repeated. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 24, 1162–1181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hopfield, J. J. (1982). Neural networks and physical systems with emergent collective computational abilities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 79, 2554–2558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kanwisher, N. G. (1987). Repetition blindness: Type recognition without token individuation. Cognition, 27, 117–143.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Kohonen, T. (1988). The “neural” phonetic typewriter. Computer, 21, 11–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Marcus, G. F., Vijayan, S., Rao, S. B., & Vishton, P. M. (1999). Rule learning by seven-month-old infants. Science, 283, 77–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Newport, E. L., & Aslin, R. N. (2004). Learning at a distance I. Statistical learning of non-adjacent dependencies. Cognitive Psychology, 48, 127–162.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Nyquist (www.cs.cmu.edu/~music/nyquist/). Retrieved May 6, 2007. Onnis, L., Christiansen, M. H., Chater, N., & Gómez, R. (2003). Reduction of uncertainty in human sequential learning: Evidence from artificial grammar learning. Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  14. Onnis, L., Monaghan, P., Richmond, K., & Chater, N. (2005). Phonology impacts segmentation in online speech processing. Journal of Memory & Language, 53, 225–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Papousek, M., Papousek, H., & Haekel, M. (1987). Didactic adjustments in fathers’ and mothers’ speech to their 3-month-old infants. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 16, 491–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Peña, M., Bonatti, L. L., Nespor, M., & Mehler, J. (2002). Signaldriven computations in speech processing. Science, 298, 604–607.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Pothos, E. M., & Bailey, T. M. (2000). The importance of similarity in artificial grammar learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 26, 847–862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Saffran, J. R. (2003). Statistical language learning: Mechanisms and constraints. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12, 110–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of YorkYorkEngland
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyLancaster UniversityLancasterEngland

Personalised recommendations