Elsevier

Cognitive Psychology

Volume 42, Issue 1, February 2001, Pages 61-112
Cognitive Psychology

Regular Article
Abstractionist and Processing Accounts of Implicit Learning

https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.2000.0743Get rights and content

Abstract

Five experiments evaluated the contributions of rule, exemplar, fragment, and episodic knowledge in artificial grammar learning using memorization versus hypothesis-testing training tasks. Strings of letters were generated from a biconditional grammar that allows different sources of responding to be unconfounded. There was no evidence that memorization led to passive abstraction of rules or encoding of whole training exemplars. Memorizers instead used explicit fragment knowledge to identify the grammatical status of test items, although this led to chance performance. Successful hypothesis-testers classified at near-perfect levels by processing training and test stimuli according to their rule structure. The results support the episodic-processing account of implicit and explicit learning.

References (66)

  • B.W.A. Whittlesea et al.

    Why do strangers feel familiar, but friends don't? A discrepancy-attribution account of feelings of familiarity

    Acta Psychologica

    (1998)
  • M. Abrams et al.

    Implicit learning in special populations

    Journal of Psycholinguistic Research

    (1989)
  • G.T.M. Altmann et al.

    Modality independence of implicitly learned grammatical knowledge

    Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition

    (1995)
  • I. Biedermann et al.

    Sexing day-old chicks: A case study and expert systems analysis of a difficult perceptual-learning task

    Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition

    (1987)
  • L.R. Brooks

    Nonanalytic concept formation and memory for instances

  • L.R. Brooks et al.

    Abstract analogies and abstracted grammars: Comments on Reber (1989) and Mathews et al. (1989)

    Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

    (1991)
  • A. Cleeremans

    Mechanisms of implicit learning

    (1993)
  • Z. Dienes et al.

    Unconscious knowledge of artificial grammars is applied strategically

    Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition

    (1995)
  • Z. Dienes et al.

    Implicit and explicit knowledge bases in artificial grammar learning

    Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition

    (1991)
  • D.E. Dulany et al.

    A case of syntactical learning and judgment: How conscious and how abstract?

    Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

    (1984)
  • R.L. Gomez et al.

    The basis of transfer in artificial grammar learning

    Memory & Cognition

    (2000)
  • R.L. Gomez et al.

    What is learned from artificial grammars? Transfer tests of simple association

    Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition

    (1994)
  • D.L. Hintzman

    “Schema abstraction” in a multiple-trace memory model

    Psychological Review

    (1986)
  • D.L. Hintzman

    Judgments of frequency and recognition memory in a multiple trace memory model

    Psychological Review

    (1988)
  • T. Johnstone et al.

    Two mechanisms in implicit artificial grammar learning? Comment on Meulemans and Van der Linden (1997)

    Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition

    (1999)
  • Kinder, A, &, Shanks, D. R. 2000, Amnesia and the declarative/nondeclarative distinction: A recurrent network model of...
  • B.J. Knowlton et al.

    Intact artificial grammar learning in amnesia: Dissociation of classification learning and explicit memory for instances

    Psychological Science

    (1992)
  • B.J. Knowlton et al.

    The information acquired during artificial grammar learning

    Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition

    (1994)
  • B.J. Knowlton et al.

    Artificial grammar learning depends on implicit acquisition of both abstract and exemplar-specific information

    Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition

    (1996)
  • P. Lewicki et al.

    On the status of nonconscious processes in human cognition: Comment on Reber

    Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

    (1989)
  • L. Manza et al.

    Representing artificial grammars: Transfer across stimulus forms and modalities

  • R.C. Mathews et al.

    Role of implicit and explicit processes in learning from examples: A synergistic effect

    Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition

    (1989)
  • Cited by (75)

    • A comparison of the impact of digital games eliciting explicit and implicit learning processes in preschoolers

      2022, International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction
      Citation Excerpt :

      Finally, one further explanation might account for the significant differences observed between the frequencies with which children are exposed to the associations to be learned in implicit and explicit games. Frequency-based learning effects are generally observed in both explicit and implicit learning conditions (for language learning, see, e.g., Hamrick & Rebuschat, 2014; Kidd, Lieven, & Tomasello, 2006; for a frequency-based account of implicit learning, see, e.g., Johnstone & Shanks, 2001; Perruchet, 2008). A large body of research has shown that associative mechanisms cause high-frequency patterns, whether auditory or visual, to be learned better than low-frequency ones in both children and adults (e.g., Fiser & Aslin, 2001; Lieven, 2010; Perruchet & Pacteau, 1990; Saffran, 2003).

    • Implicit sequence learning of chunking and abstract structures

      2018, Consciousness and Cognition
      Citation Excerpt :

      Nonetheless, in the Experiments 2 and 3 of Dominey et al. (1998), participants in the implicit learning condition also showed significant or marginally significant learning effects of the abstract structures, although it was argued that this abstract learning effect was due to single-item recency effects. Other researchers have also argued that abstract knowledge can be acquired only in explicit learning conditions (Boyer, Destrebecqz, & Cleeremans, 2005; Channon et al., 2002; Cleeremans & Destrebecqz, 2005; Johnstonem & Shanks, 2001). Fu, et al. (2008) adopted two second-order conditional (SOC) sequences (SOC1 = 3-4-2-3-1-2-1-4-3-2-4-1; SOC2 = 3-4-1-2-4-3-1-4-2-1-3-2) in the training phase, in which one SOC sequence is the training sequence and its triplets occurred with a large probability and the other SOC sequence is the transfer sequence and its triplets occurred with a small probability.

    • Frequency and working memory effects in incidental learning of a complex agreement pattern

      2018, Lingua
      Citation Excerpt :

      The subsequent section outlines the importance of the frequency factor in incidental learning and reviews the experimental literature on the role of frequency in grammatical knowledge acquisition. Frequency constitutes the nucleus of implicit learning, as implicit learning is understood as a process of tracking the frequencies of the items co-occurring in the input and storing them in memory (Johnstone and Shanks, 2001; Knowlton and Squire, 1996; Knowlton et al., 1992; Perruchet and Pacteau, 1990). Many theoretical models – such as the usage-based approach to grammar (Bybee, 1998; Goldberg, 2006; Langacker, 1987) and connectionist models of language learning and processing (Christiansen and Chater, 1999; Elman, 1991; MacWhinney, 1998) – credit frequency with a fundamental role in learning.

    • Concept Learning and Representation: Models

      2015, International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences: Second Edition
    View all citing articles on Scopus

    Theresa Johnstone and David R. Shanks, Department of Psychology, University College London, England. This research was supported by United Kingdom Medical Research Council Research Studentship G78/4925 and by a grant from the United Kingdom Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC). The work is part of the program of the ESRC Centre for Economic Learning and Social Evolution, University College London. We thank Shelley Channon, Axel Cleeremans, Zoltán Dienes, Koen Lamberts, Mark St. John, Richard Tunney, and Bruce Whittlesea for their helpful comments on this work.

    Address correspondence and reprint requests to David Shanks, Department of Psychology, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, England. E-mail: [email protected].

    View full text