Memory & Cognition

, Volume 28, Issue 2, pp 253–263 | Cite as

The basis of transfer in artificial grammar learning

  • Rebecca L. Gomez
  • Louann Gerken
  • Roger W. Schvaneveldt
Article

Abstract

In two experiments, we examined the extent to which knowledge of sequential dependencies and/or patterns of repeating elements is used during transfer in artificial grammar learning. According to one view of transfer, learners abstract the grammar’s sequential dependencies and then learn a mapping to new vocabulary at test (Dienes, Altmann, & Gao, 1999). Elements that are repeated have no special status on this view, and so a logical prediction is that learners should transfer as well after exposure to a grammar without repetitions as after exposure to a grammar with them. On another view, repetition structure is the very basis of transfer (Brooks & Vokey, 1991; Mathews & Roussel, 1997). Learners were trained on grammars with or without repeating elements to test these competing views. Learners demonstrated considerable knowledge of sequential dependencies in their training vocabulary but did not use such knowledge to transfer to a new vocabulary. Transfer only occurred in the presence of repetition structure, demonstrating this to be the basis of transfer.

Supplementary material

Gomez-MC-2000.zip (12 kb)
Supplementary material, approximately 340 KB.

References

  1. Abrams, M., &Reber, A. S. (1988). Implicit learning: Robustness in the face of psychiatric disorders.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,17, 425–439.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen, R., &Reber, A. S. (1980). Very long term memory for tacit knowledge.Cognition,8, 175–185.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Altmann, G. T. M., Dienes, Z., &Goode, A. (1995). Modality independence of implicitly learned grammatical knowledge.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,21, 899–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brooks, L. R., &Vokey, J. R. (1991). Abstract analogies and abstracted grammars: Comments on Reber (1989) and Mathews et al. (1989).Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,120, 316–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cleeremans, A. (1997). Principles for implicit learning. In D. C. Berry (Ed.),How implicit is implicit learning? (pp. 195–234). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Dienes, Z., &Altmann, G. A. (1997). Transfer of implicit knowledge across domains: How implicit and how abstract? In D. C. Berry (Ed.),How implicit is implicit learning? (pp. 107–123). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Dienes, Z., Altmann, G. T. M., &Gao, S.-J. (1999). Mapping across domains without feedback: A neural network model of transfer of implicit knowledge.Cognitive Science,23, 53–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dienes, Z., Broadbent, D., &Berry, D. (1991). Implicit and explicit knowledge bases in artificial grammar learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,17, 875–887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Elman, J. L. (1990). Finding structure in time.Cognitive Science,14, 179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gomez, R. L. (1997). Transfer and complexity in artificial grammar learning.Cognitive Psychology,33, 154–207.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Gomez, R. L., & Gerken, L. A. (1996, November).Artificial grammar learning in one-year-olds: Evidence for generalization to new structure. Paper presented at the 21st Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development.Google Scholar
  12. Gomez, R. L., & Gerken, L. A. (1997, November).Abstraction in infant artificial grammar learning. Paper presented at the 22nd Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development.Google Scholar
  13. Gomez, R. L., & Gerken, L. A. (1998, April).The basis of abstraction in infant artificial grammar learning. Poster presented at the 13th Biennial International Conference on Infant Studies, Atlanta.Google Scholar
  14. Gomez, R. L., &Gerken, L. A. (1999). Artificial grammar learning by one-year-olds leads to specific and abstract knowledge.Cognition,70, 109–135.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Gomez, R. L., &Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1994). What is learned from artificial grammars? Transfer tests of simple association.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,20, 396–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kemler Nelson, D. G., Jusczyk, P. W., Mandel, D. R., Myers, J., Turk, A., &Gerken, L. A. (1995). The head-turn preference procedure for testing auditory perception.Infant Behavior & Development,18, 111–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Knowlton, B. J., &Squire, L. R. (1994). The information acquired during artificial grammar learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,20, 79–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Knowlton, B. J., &Squire, L. R. (1996). Artificial grammar learning depends on implicit acquisition of both abstract and exemplar-specific information.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning. Memory, & Cognition,22, 169–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Marcus, G. F., Vijayan, S., Bandi Rao, S., &Vishton, P. M. (1999). Rule learning by seven-month-old infants.Science,283, 77–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Mathews, R. C., Buss, R., Stanley, W. B., Blanchard-Fields, F., Cho, J. R., &Druhan, B. (1989). Role of implicit and explicit processes in learning from examples: A synergistic effect.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning. Memory. & Cognition,15, 1083–1100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mathews, R. C., &Roussel, L. G. (1997). Abstractness of implicit knowledge: A cognitive evolutionary perspective. In D. C. Berry (Ed.),How implicit is implicit learning? (pp. 13–47). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Meulemans, T., &Van Der Linden, M. (1997a). Associative chunk strength in artificial grammar learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,23, 1007–1028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Meulemans, T., &Van Der Linden, M. (1997b). Does the artificial grammar learning paradigm involve acquisition of complex information?Psychologica Belgica,37, 69–88.Google Scholar
  24. Perruchet, P., &Pacteau, C. (1990). Synthetic grammar learning: Implicit rule abstraction or explicit fragmentary knowledge?Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,119, 264–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Reber, A. S. (1967). Implicit learning of artificial grammars.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,77, 317–327.Google Scholar
  26. Reber, A. S. (1969). Transfer of syntactic structure in synthetic languages.Journal of Experimental Psychology,81, 115–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Reber, A. S., &Allen, R. (1978). Analogy and abstraction strategies in synthetic grammar learning: A functionalist interpretation.Cognition,6, 189–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Reber, A. S., &Lewis, S. (1977). Toward a theory of implicit learning: The analysis of the form and structure of a body of tacit knowledge.Cognition,5, 333–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Shanks, D. R., Johnstone, T., &Staggs, L. (1997). Abstraction processes in artificial grammar learning.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,50, 216–252.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Tunney, R. J., &Altmann, G. T. M. (1999). The transfer effect in artificial grammar learning: Re-appraising the evidence on the transfer of sequential dependencies.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,25, 1322–1333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Vokey, J. R., & Higham, P. A. (1997, June). Abstract analogies and implicit abstraction of structure. Paper presented at the First Conference of the Association for the Scientific Study of Consciousness, Claremont, CA.Google Scholar
  32. Whittlesea, B. W. A., &Dorken, M. D. (1993). Incidentally, things in general are particularly determined: An episodic-processing account of implicit learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,19, 227–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Whittlesea, B. W. A., &Wright, R. L. (1997). Implicit (and explicit) learning: Acting adaptively without knowing the consequences.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,23, 181–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rebecca L. Gomez
    • 1
  • Louann Gerken
    • 2
  • Roger W. Schvaneveldt
    • 2
  1. 1.University of ArizonaTucson
  2. 2.New Mexico State UniversityLas Cruces

Personalised recommendations