
==== Front
PLoS One
PLoS One
plos
PLOS ONE
1932-6203
Public Library of Science San Francisco, CA USA

10.1371/journal.pone.0308653
PONE-D-23-24683
Research Article
Biology and Life Sciences
Neuroscience
Cognitive Science
Cognitive Psychology
Learning
Biology and Life Sciences
Psychology
Cognitive Psychology
Learning
Social Sciences
Psychology
Cognitive Psychology
Learning
Biology and Life Sciences
Neuroscience
Learning and Memory
Learning
Biology and Life Sciences
Neuroscience
Cognitive Science
Cognitive Neuroscience
Reaction Time
Biology and Life Sciences
Neuroscience
Cognitive Neuroscience
Reaction Time
Biology and Life Sciences
Neuroscience
Cognitive Science
Cognitive Psychology
Perception
Sensory Perception
Sensory Cues
Biology and Life Sciences
Psychology
Cognitive Psychology
Perception
Sensory Perception
Sensory Cues
Social Sciences
Psychology
Cognitive Psychology
Perception
Sensory Perception
Sensory Cues
Biology and Life Sciences
Neuroscience
Sensory Perception
Sensory Cues
Social Sciences
Linguistics
Language Acquisition
Biology and Life Sciences
Neuroscience
Cognitive Science
Cognitive Psychology
Learning
Human Learning
Biology and Life Sciences
Psychology
Cognitive Psychology
Learning
Human Learning
Social Sciences
Psychology
Cognitive Psychology
Learning
Human Learning
Biology and Life Sciences
Neuroscience
Learning and Memory
Learning
Human Learning
Social Sciences
Linguistics
Grammar
Biology and Life Sciences
Neuroscience
Cognitive Science
Cognitive Psychology
Language
Biology and Life Sciences
Psychology
Cognitive Psychology
Language
Social Sciences
Psychology
Cognitive Psychology
Language
Research and Analysis Methods
Mathematical and Statistical Techniques
Statistical Methods
Forecasting
Physical Sciences
Mathematics
Statistics
Statistical Methods
Forecasting
Assessing processing-based measures of implicit statistical learning: Three serial reaction time experiments do not reveal artificial grammar learning
Assessing processing-based measures of implicit statistical learning
https://orcid.org/0009-0007-0871-0903
Jenkins Holly E. Conceptualization Data curation Formal analysis Methodology Writing – original draft Writing – review & editing 1
https://orcid.org/0009-0009-5405-4550
Leung Phyllis Data curation Writing – review & editing 2
Smith Faye Conceptualization Writing – review & editing 3
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1867-3014
Riches Nick Conceptualization Methodology Writing – review & editing 3
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2043-7771
Wilson Benjamin Conceptualization Formal analysis Writing – original draft Writing – review & editing 4 5 *
1 Department of Education, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
2 Derbyshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Matlock, United Kingdom
3 School of Education, Communication and Language Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom
4 Department of Psychology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America
5 Emory National Primate Research Center, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America
Blake John Editor
University of Aizu, JAPAN
Competing Interests: This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

* E-mail: benjamin.wilson@emory.edu
20 9 2024
2024
19 9 e030865310 11 2023
27 7 2024
© 2024 Jenkins et al
2024
Jenkins et al
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Implicit statistical learning, whereby predictable relationships between stimuli are detected without conscious awareness, is important for language acquisition. However, while this process is putatively implicit, it is often assessed using measures that require explicit reflection and conscious decision making. Here, we conducted three experiments combining an artificial grammar learning paradigm with a serial reaction time (SRT-AGL) task, to measure statistical learning of adjacent and nonadjacent dependencies implicitly, without conscious decision making. Participants viewed an array of six visual stimuli and were presented with a sequence of three auditory (nonsense words, Expt. 1; names of familiar objects, Expt. 2) or visual (abstract shapes, Expt. 3) cues and were asked to click on the corresponding visual stimulus as quickly as possible. In each experiment, the final stimulus in the sequence was predictable based on items earlier in the sequence. Faster responses to this predictable final stimulus compared to unpredictable stimuli would provide evidence of implicit statistical learning, without requiring explicit decision making or conscious reflection. Despite previous positive results (Christiansen et al. 2009 and Misyak et al. 2010) we saw little evidence of implicit statistical learning in any of the experiments, suggesting that in this case, these SRT-AGL tasks were not an effective measure implicit statistical learning.

Wellcome Fellowship WT110198/Z/15/Z https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2043-7771
Wilson Benjamin NIH ORIP/P51OD011132 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2043-7771
Wilson Benjamin The research was funded by a Sir Henry Wellcome Fellowship (BW: WT110198/Z/15/Z; https://wellcome.org/) and by ORIP/P51OD011132 (NIH). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Data AvailabilityThe data and analysis are available on OSF (DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/DETP3).
Data Availability

The data and analysis are available on OSF (DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/DETP3).
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

The environment in which we live is richly structured; events do not occur randomly, but some events predict others. For example, rain can typically be predicted by the presence of dark clouds, or the sound of a car horn may predict a traffic accident. We often learn about this structure via implicit statistical learning, whereby knowledge is acquired automatically, without explicit awareness of the relationships between objects, events or actions. This same process of acquiring structure based on statistical cues is also central to language learning, where grammatical rules are often acquired implicitly and without conscious awareness [1–3].

In a series of seminal studies, Saffran and colleagues showed that infants learn to recognise word boundaries in a continuous speech stream based only on statistical regularities from both artificial stimuli [4–7] and in natural languages [8]. Beyond detecting word boundaries, similar processes are assumed to be involved in implicitly learning grammatical relationships between words or phrases [9–13]. These artificial grammar learning experiments can be used to assess the learning of both relationships between adjacent words in a sentence, and also more complex nonadjacent dependencies [14, 15]. These types of tasks have provided valuable insights into how grammatical knowledge can be acquired based on the statistical regularities in the input to which we are exposed, without conscious awareness of these grammatical rules [12].

Artificial grammar learning studies typically consist of two phases. First is an exposure or learning phase in which a participant is presented with many sequences of stimuli (normally auditory or visual), which conform to certain rules and thus contain predictable statistical regularities (e.g., some stimuli co-occur more frequently than others). In this phase participants might be asked to attend to the stimuli but are usually not told to search for any particular rules or patterns, only to passively view or listen to the stimuli. In a subsequent testing phase, participants are presented with some sequences which follow the same rules as the exposure sequences that they previously heard (grammatical sequences) and some sequences which violate these rules (ungrammatical sequences). Different responses to the grammatical sequences compared to the ungrammatical sequences can be taken as evidence that the participant learned at least some of the rules or statistical regularities during the initial exposure phase. The inability to identify any of the rules or relationships within the grammar suggests that this knowledge is implicit [12, 16, 17].

The testing phase of artificial grammar learning experiments often rely on methods that, at least to some extent, assess explicit knowledge. In these studies, following exposure, participants typically complete a grammaticality judgement task, in which they are told that the sequences that they have just heard followed certain rules or patterns. They are then told that they must indicate whether the testing sequences that they are about to hear are “well-formed”, in other words, whether they follow the same or different patterns [7, 12]. These ‘reflection-based’ methods require participants to consciously think about what they have learned and make explicit decisions about the grammaticality of a sequence. This may not be an appropriate way of measuring implicit statistical learning, as these tasks are potentially tapping into other, more explicit decision-making processes [18]. To avoid this, some studies have used ‘processing-based’ measures of learning, which measure other variables that are facilitated by implicit statistical learning, and avoid any interference from explicit decision-making processes [2, 18–23].

One processing-based approach that avoids relying on explicit decision-making uses reaction times to measure implicit learning. One of the reasons that it is beneficial to learn statistical regularities in our environment is because it allows us to better predict future events, and thus react faster to them. Serial Reaction Time (SRT) tasks have demonstrated implicit learning by showing that if participants are asked to make sequences of motor responses (e.g., touch stimuli in different spatial locations), they become faster at producing predictable sequences than random sequences [24–26]. In these tasks, faster reaction times demonstrate implicit learning of action sequences.

The learning observed in traditional SRT tasks may be somewhat different to the statistical learning found in artificial grammar learning tasks and indeed in natural language, in which participants must learn dependencies between sensory stimuli rather than between spatial locations. Moreover, traditional SRT tasks are thought to rely on different cognitive and neural mechanisms than artificial grammar learning tasks, for example procedural memory [27]. However, SRT tasks have been adapted to better assess artificial grammar learning, and to measure the learning of associations between stimuli, rather than the relationships between specific spatial locations. For example, Misyak et al. [20] presented participants with a visual array containing two rows of three nonsense word stimuli (see Fig 1 for a similar design). Participants were then presented with a sequence of three auditory nonsense words, each corresponding to one of the nonsense words on screen and asked to click on the matching nonsense word stimulus as quickly as possible. Unbeknownst to the participants, the first nonsense word of the sequence always predicted the final nonsense word, by way of a nonadjacent dependency. Over the course of the experiment participants became faster at responding to this final predictable nonsense word, and reaction times were slower in a ‘Testing Block’ when they were presented with sequences that did not contain the predictable relationships [19] (although see [28–30] for other instances of SRT-like measures for SL, and [31], for an early adaptation of the SRT paradigm). Importantly, in this task although the nonsense word sequences always unfolded from left to right across the screen, the vertical position of the stimuli was randomised, and was not predictable based on the previous nonsense words. This removes the reliance on motor learning of action sequences, and required that the participants learn relationships between the nonsense words themselves.

10.1371/journal.pone.0308653.g001 Fig 1 Trial design for Experiment 1.

A) SRT-AGL task. On each trial participants were presented with an array of 6 visual nonsense word stimuli. Every trial contained 2 ‘A’ elements in the left column, 2 ‘X’ elements in the middle column, and 2 ‘B’ items in the right column. Participants were presented with an auditory cue corresponding to one of the two visual stimuli in each column, and were asked to click on the matching visual stimulus as quickly as possible (see Methods). Following their final response, participants were given a score corresponding to their total reaction time across the whole sequence. B) Sequence Completion task. As in the SRT-AGL task, participants were presented with a visual array of stimuli and responded to the first two auditory cue stimuli. However, the final auditory cue stimulus was replaced with a ‘beep’ sound, and the participants were asked to guess the nonsense word stimulus that they felt completed the sequence. C) Grammaticality Judgement Task. In this task participants were shown a blue fixation spot and were presented with an auditory sequence that was either ‘grammatical’ or ‘ungrammatical’. When the spot changed colour, they pressed one of two keys on the keyboard to indicate whether the sequence followed the same pattern as the sequence they had heard previously or not.

There has been much discussion relating to the types of processing that are involved in implicit statistical learning tasks, and whether these tasks are effective and reliable measures [32]. Indeed, many tasks measuring implicit statistical learning rely on both implicit and explicit processing, and separating these processes presents challenges [33]. Indeed, a related, although not wholly analogous, line of research has used a range of measures (including subjective confidence ratings, gambling tasks and target detection paradigms) to ask whether the knowledge acquired in these tasks may actually be available to explicit, conscious awareness, and therefore may not truly be ‘implicit’ knowledge (see [34–39]). This is undoubtedly an important question, although it is somewhat different to the goal of the current study. Here, rather than asking if the learning that is observed is explicitly available, we instead ask whether it is possible to elicit and measure learning without requiring any conscious reflection. One of the key benefits of combining SRT and AGL paradigms over other ‘implicit’ paradigms (e.g., [39]) is that these tasks retain the flexibility of traditional AGL paradigms, in that they can be used to measure learning of a variety of types of grammatical dependencies, from simpler adjacent dependencies to more complex hierarchical relationships.

Although it was beyond the scope of the current experiments, the long-term aim of this project was to design a task that could be used in the future to assess individual differences in implicit statistical learning in individuals with language and reading difficulties, such as dyslexia. To achieve this goal, we first aimed to broadly replicate the original results ([20]; Experiment. 1), then to design an SRT-AGL task more suitable for those with language difficulties or disorders by removing the requirement to read nonsense words (Experiment 2) or respond to phonological stimuli (Experiment 3), the processing of which is thought to be impaired in dyslexia [40].

Following the SRT-AGL task, participants completed reflection-based tasks to investigate more explicit awareness of the dependencies within the sequences. In Experiments 1 and 2, participants completed a ‘Sequence Completion’ task and a ‘Grammaticality Judgement’ task, and in Experiment 3 they also completed a novel ‘Sequence Generation’ task. In the Sequence Completion task, participants were presented with the first two stimuli in a sequence, as in the SRT-AGL task. However, the final stimulus was omitted, and the participant was asked to complete the sequence without the cue, by selecting the appropriate final stimulus based on what they had learned during the experiment. In this task, rather than using reaction times as a processing-based measure of learning, response accuracy in selecting this final element was analysed to assess learning that might be somewhat more explicit, and based on conscious reflection. The Grammaticality Judgement task was very similar to those used in previous experiments [19, 20]. Participants were presented with a sequence and explicitly asked whether the sequence followed the same pattern as the sequences they had previously been exposed to, requiring further explicit reflection on their knowledge of the underlying structure of the sequences. In the Sequence Generation task in Experiment 3, participants were tasked with creating their own sequences, without any cues, based on what they had learned. The Sequence Generation task was designed to provide more information regarding the extent to which participants are consciously aware of any implicitly acquired knowledge, as the ability to generate sequences relies on gaining explicit access to knowledge of the dependencies [41, 42]. Taken together, these tasks were included to assess the extent to which participants had access to the information they had (presumably) implicitly learned, in order to make more explicit decisions.

If SRT-AGL tasks are an effective measure of implicit statistical learning, then we would predict that participants would show faster reaction times to the predictable sequences than to unpredictable sequences. If this learning was consciously accessible, we would also predict that those participants who showed implicit learning during the SRT-AGL tasks should also show above chance performance during the subsequent, more explicit tasks. By contrast, if implicitly learned knowledge is inaccessible for immediate conscious decision-making, we would predict no correlation between the SRT-AGL task and the explicit tasks [43, 44].

General methods

Stimuli

In three experiments, we used an artificial grammar to assess whether participants implicitly learn nonadjacent dependencies [20, 45]. This grammar generates sequences of three elements of the form ‘AXB’, where the initial ‘A’ element (e.g., ‘A1’) predicts the final ‘B’ element (‘B1’) forming a nonadjacent dependency (‘A1XB1’) while the intervening ‘X’ element is not dependent on either the ‘A’ or the ‘B’ stimuli. In Experiment 3, we also assessed adjacent dependency learning using a similar grammar of the form ‘XAB’, where the ‘A’ elements still predicted the ‘B’ elements, but these items occurred adjacent to one another in a sequence, rather than being separated by the intervening ‘X’ element.

Procedure

We conducted three experiments based on previous Serial Reaction Time-Artificial Grammar Learning (SRT-AGL) experiments [19, 20, 46]. All three experiments shared the same general procedure, including an SRT-AGL task, followed by a Sequence Completion task and a Grammaticality Judgement task (see below for details). All participants provided informed consent before taking part.

All experiments took place in testing labs either within the Institute of Neuroscience at Newcastle University or the Department of Psychology at Emory University. Participants were seated approximately 60cm in front of a 24 inch computer monitor (screen resolution 1920*1200 pixels). All experiments were coded using Matlab and PsychToolbox. Responses were made either with the mouse (in the SRT-AGL and Sequence Completion tasks) or by pressing one of two keys on the keyboard (in the Grammaticality Judgement tasks, see below). All experiments had ethical approval from the Newcastle University Human Ethics Committee for Faculty of Medical Sciences or Emory University Institutional Review Board, and all the participants provided informed consent before taking part in the experiment.

Serial Reaction Time-Artificial Grammar Learning task

In the SRT-AGL task, participants were presented with an array of 6 visual stimuli arranged in two rows of three images (Fig 1). The vertical position of the stimuli (upper or lower) was pseudo-randomised so that all items occurred equally frequently in the upper and lower positions, and so that the matching ‘A’ and ‘B’ elements occurred in the same row 50% of the time, so the correct responses could not be predicted based on the position of the stimuli. 250ms after the visual stimuli appeared, we presented a cue stimulus which corresponded to one of the two visual stimuli in the left-hand column on the screen (see Fig 1, and below for details of stimuli for each experiment) and the participant was instructed to click on the matching stimulus as quickly as possible. Immediately following their response, a cue stimulus corresponding to one of the visual stimuli in the middle column was presented, and again participants reacted as quickly as possible, before a cue corresponding to a stimulus in the right column was presented in the same way. At the end of each trial, after the participant made their final response, participants were given feedback based on their reaction time (see below). The mouse cursor remained in the control of the participant throughout the experiment.

In each experiment the final element of the sequence was predictable based on the previous elements in the sequence (see Stimuli). Therefore, if participants had learned the dependency, they should be able to respond more quickly to this predictable element than the preceding, unpredictable stimuli [19, 20]. Therefore, we calculated the difference in reaction time between the first (RTA) and last element (RTB). This difference (RTA-B) gives a measure of the speed increase provided by the predictable stimulus. We also calculated a similar measure of reaction time based on the unpredictable ‘X’ element (RTX-B). The results of these analyses did not differ from those using RTA-B, (see S1 Fig in S1 File), so we primarily report the RTA-B results.

In each experiment participants were also presented with ungrammatical sequences in which the final ‘B’ element in the sequence did not correspond to the ‘A’ element (e.g., ‘A1XB2’). In Experiments 1 and 2 these ungrammatical sequences were all presented in a single ‘Testing Block’ of 24 trials towards the end of the experiment, while in Experiment 3 we used an oddball design, in which the ungrammatical sequences were infrequently presented throughout the experiment (see individual experiment Methods, below). In both cases, we predicted that if participants had learned the dependencies (e.g., A1 → B1), they should implicitly anticipate the predictable ‘B’ stimulus and therefore when they are asked to click on an unexpected element (e.g., B2) they should show slower reaction times.

Sequence Completion task

Following the SRT-AGL task each participant took part in a Sequence Completion task consisting of 12 trials. Each trial in this task began identically to the SRT-AGL task: the participants were presented with an array of 6 visual stimuli, after which the first two cue stimuli were presented and participants responded by clicking on the matching stimuli, as before. However, instead of presenting the final cue stimulus (corresponding to the final element in the sequence), participants were presented with either a ‘beep’ sound (Experiment 1 and 2) or a question mark (Experiment 3) in place of the final cue stimulus (see Fig 1). They were instructed to choose which of the two possible final stimuli they thought completed the sequence. We predicted that if the participants had learned the sequence dependencies in the earlier part of the task, they should be more likely to select the correct stimulus. As the participants were asked to make a conscious decision in this task, this may rely on more explicit processes, similar to grammaticality judgement tasks. However, unlike the grammaticality judgement tasks, the participants were not informed that the sequences followed any patterns or rules within the sequences prior to this task, and therefore this might offer a more implicit alternative to the grammaticality judgement task.

Grammaticality Judgement task

We then conducted a more traditional grammaticality judgement task. In this task, participants were presented with 24 sequences of three stimuli (drawn from the SRT-AGL stimuli, with each stimulus (e.g., A1, A2, A3), presented equally frequently) and asked whether or not these sequences ‘followed the same pattern’ as the sequences they had heard or seen previously, by pressing one of two keys on the keyboard. They were told that if they were not certain they should respond based on their gut feeling. This approach is similar to many other AGL studies, particularly testing adult participants [12].

Data analysis

In all SRT-AGL task trials, if participants made an error the trial was omitted from the reaction time analysis (<4% of trials contained an incorrect response). We predicted that participants may also make more errors in their selection of the final ‘B’ elements for the ungrammatical sequences than for the grammatical sequences, although analysis of the data from all three tasks showed that errors were minimal. To remove outliers, we also omitted trials with reaction times that exceeded the mean reaction time + 3SDs, for each participant.

Experiment 1: Nonsense word SRT-AGL task

Participants

Twenty-eight adult participants (17 female, 11 male; ages 19–52 years, mean age: 31 years) were recruited using the Institute of Neuroscience participant pool at Newcastle University. All participants had normal or corrected to normal hearing and vision.

Stimuli

In this experiment the stimuli were monosyllabic consonant-vowel-consonant (CVC) nonsense words (e.g., ‘bek’, ‘kiv’, ‘jat’; see Table 1), presented in the form ‘AXB’. We used 3 ‘A’ and 3 ‘B’ elements, which consistently co-occurred with one another (e.g., ‘A1XB1’; if a sequence began with ‘bek’ it always ended with ‘jat’). We included 24 ‘X’ elements (see Table 1), based on the finding that more variability in these uninformative stimuli facilitates the learning of nonadjacent dependencies [45]. The ‘X’ elements used in this experiment were monosyllabic (rather than bisyllabic ‘X’ as in the original Misyak et al. study [20]) to more closely mimic natural language, where nonadjacent dependencies may not be denoted by perceptual cues. All sequences took the form ‘AXB’, however for the ungrammatical testing sequences the ‘A’ and ‘B’ elements did not match (e.g., A1XB2, ‘bek kiv tef’ instead of ‘bek kiv jat’).

10.1371/journal.pone.0308653.t001 Table 1 Stimuli for Experiment 1.

Sequences all took the form ‘AXB’ (e.g., ‘bek kiv jat’), in which the ‘A’ and ‘B’ elements always co-occurred. There were 3 ‘A’ and ‘B’ elements and 24 possible ‘X’ elements giving a total of 72 possible grammatical sequences. Each sequence was presented once in each Learning Block and in the Recovery Block (see Methods). In the Testing Block, ungrammatical pairs of A and B elements (i.e., A1_B2, A1_B3, A2_B1, A2_B3, A3_B1, A3_B2) were presented four times and each ‘X’ element was presented once.

‘A’ Elements		‘B’ Elements	‘X’ elements	
bek	-	jat	biz	heb	lod	rik	
dil	jup	lun	ruj	
hix	-	tef	fal	kay	mep	sap	
fip	kiv	mot	taz	
pob	-	zad	gak	kug	naj	vup	
gol	lar	raz	yun	

On each trial, participants were presented with both auditory and visual nonsense word stimuli (see Procedure). The auditory stimuli were naturally spoken by a female native English speaker recorded with an Edirol R-09HR (Roland) sound recorder and their amplitude was root-mean-square (RMS) balanced. The stimuli were presented at 70dB. The duration of all nonsense word stimuli was 600ms. The visual stimuli were presented on a computer monitor in white on a black background in courier font at font size 48 within a 300 by 300-pixel square (Fig 1).

Procedure

Participants completed the SRT-AGL task first, which consisted of several different blocks. First were 6 ‘Learning Blocks’, in which participants were presented only with grammatical sequences. Every possible ‘AXB’ sequence was presented once per block for a total of 72 trials, and the order of the sequences was randomised. These blocks gave the participants the opportunity to implicitly learn the nonadjacent dependencies. Following the 6 Learning Blocks there was a ‘Testing Block’ of 24 trials, in which participants were presented with only ungrammatical sequences (e.g., A1XB2). In the Testing Block all ungrammatical pairs of ‘A’ and ‘B’ elements (i.e., A1_B2, A1_B3, A2_B1, A2_B3, A3_B1, A3_B2) were presented equally frequently and each ‘X’ element was presented once. Finally, there was a ‘Recovery Block’ of 72 trials consisting only of grammatical sequences. This block was identical to the first 6 Learning Blocks. There were no pauses or information screens separating the different blocks, so participants were unaware that they were transitioning to or from the Testing Block. There was one optional pause halfway through the experiment, between Learning Blocks 4 and 5, to give the participants an opportunity to take a short break, if they desired. There was no relationship between break duration and learning (see S1 Table in S1 File).

In all the blocks, after completing each trial participants were given a score from 0–100 based on their reaction times, to encourage them to respond as quickly as possible (1/sum of reaction times (in seconds) multiplied by 100). This score was based on their total reaction time across the whole sequence, not specifically to the final, predictable ‘B’ element. This was to avoid any possibility that participants might preferentially respond quickly only to certain elements in the sequence to receive a higher score.

Following the SRT-AGL task, participants took part in the Sequence Completion and Grammaticality Judgement tasks (see General Methods).

Data analysis

In the SRT-AGL task, participants completed 6 Learning Blocks, containing grammatical sequences only, followed by an ungrammatical Testing Block, followed by a final grammatical Recovery Block. We conducted repeated measures ANOVAs to compare reaction times across blocks. As in previous studies using this methodology, if learning had occurred during the SRT-AGL task, then we would predict faster reaction times to the final, predictable ‘B’ element (RTA-B) in Learning Block 6 compared to Learning Block 1, as well as faster reaction times in Learning Block 6 compared to the Testing Block and faster reaction times in the Recovery Block compared to the Testing Block. Therefore, we also conducted planned comparisons using paired sample t-tests to compare reaction time differences between these blocks of the SRT-AGL task. Performance in the Sequence Completion and Grammaticality Judgement task was compared to chance (50%) using one sample t-tests. To correlate performance on the implicit SRT-AGL task with the more explicit tasks, Pearson’s correlation coefficients were calculated.

Results

In this experiment we used an SRT-AGL task to assess the implicit learning of nonadjacent dependencies between nonsense words, based on the paradigm developed by Misyak et al. [20]. Misyak and colleagues found that participants got faster at responding to predictable ‘B’ elements over the course of the experiment (RTA-B increased from Learning Block 1 to Learning Block 6), and that responses slowed when presented with ungrammatical sequences in the Testing Block (Block 7), before increasing again in the Recovery Block (Block 8). We predicted similar effects in this experiment; however, the results were less clear.

We conducted a repeated measures ANOVA (with Greenhouse-Geisser corrections) with Block (8 blocks) as a within-subjects factor. There was no significant main effect of Block (F2.49,67.29 = 2.757, p = .059, η2p = 0.093, 90% CIs = [0, 0.189]). Planned comparisons indicate that there was no increase in the reaction time difference (RTA-B) from the first Learning Block to the final Learning Block, (paired-sample t-tests; t27 = 0.138, p = 0.89, d = 0.026, 95% CI = [-0.345, 0.396]; Fig 2A, see S2 Table in S1 File for descriptive statistics), showing that the participants did not get faster at responding to the predictable stimuli over the course of the experiment. After completing the 6 Learning Blocks during which participants were only presented with grammatical sequences containing the predictable ‘A-B’ transitions, participants completed the Testing Block, in which all the sequences ended with an unexpected ‘B’ element (e.g., A1XB2). We compared response times in the final Learning Block with this Testing Block and found a trend towards slower responses (t27 = 2.00, p = 0.056, d = 0.378, 95% CI = [-0.009, 0.759]), and to the subsequent Recovery Block where we found no significant differences (t27 = -1.48, p = 0.15, d = -0.279, 95% CI = [-0.655, 0.101]). While the pattern of results is visually somewhat similar to the findings of previous studies using a similar paradigm [20], our data provide little evidence of implicit learning of the nonadjacent dependencies. Note, one potential explanation for the lack of an effect using the RTA-B measure may be that the task was sufficiently simple that participants’ reaction times showed a floor effect, whereby it was not possible to respond any faster. We therefore calculated average reaction times to the ‘A’, ‘X’ and ‘B’ elements for each block of the experiment (see S2 Fig in S1 File). Average reaction times exceeded 800ms in all cases, suggesting that the lack of any differences in reaction times to the ‘A’ and ‘B’ elements was not driven by a floor effect. Moreover, reaction times to each element type were highly consistent (Cronbach’s alpha reliabilities > 0.9 in all cases).

10.1371/journal.pone.0308653.g002 Fig 2 Experiment 1 results.

A) Mean reaction time differences (RTA-B ± SEM, thick blue line) for all participants for the 6 Learning Blocks, the Testing Block containing ungrammatical sequences (highlighted in pink), and the Recovery Block. Individual data is shown in grey. B) Mean (± SEM) performance on the sequence completion task. Individual performance is shown in circles. Good learners are shown in green (based on individual binomial tests, p < 0.05), non-learners are shown in red (p > 0.05). C) Mean performance (± SEM) on the grammaticality judgement task, including learners and non-learners, as in B. D) Mean reaction time differences (RTA-B ± SEM) highlighting the good learners (green) based on the sequence completion and grammaticality judgement tasks, showing the predicted pattern of responses. E) Mean reaction time differences (RTA-B ± SEM) for the non-learners (red) on the sequence completion and grammaticality judgement tasks, showing no learning on the SRT-AGL task.

Following the SRT-AGL task, participants took part in the Sequence Completion task and the Grammaticality Judgment task. Performance was at chance levels in both the Sequence Completion task (t27 = -0.22, p = 0.83, d = -0.042, 95% CI = [-0.412, 0.329]; Fig 2B) and the Grammaticality Judgement task (t27 = 0.97, p = 0.34, d = 0.182, 95% CI = [-0.193, 0.554]; Fig 2C), again failing to demonstrate learning of the nonadjacent dependencies.

While at a group level we see little evidence of implicit learning, both the sequence completion task and grammaticality judgement task reveal a bimodal distribution of responses, with some participants performing at very high levels (green circles in Fig 2B and 2C) while the majority do not differ from chance (red circles). We categorised learners as participants who performed significantly above chance using binomial tests based on performance on the explicit tasks. The same three participants performed above chance on both the Grammaticality Judgment task and the Sequence Completion task. Interestingly, although only three participants fell into this category (rendering statistical analyses impossible), they all showed the patterns of performance on the prior SRT-AGL task that we predicted (Fig 2D). However, despite this, the majority of participants showed no evidence of learning in the SRT-AGL task (Fig 2E), or in the Sequence Completion or Grammaticality Judgement tasks.

Although based on good learning in only three participants, it is interesting that performance on the Sequence Completion task and Grammaticality Judgement task corresponds well with the implicit learning measured by the SRT-AGL task. This may suggest that these few participants had some conscious awareness of the regularities that they had learned during the SRT-AGL task. To directly assess the relationship between our implicit and explicit measures of learning, we calculated composite measures of SRT-AGL performance (based on the mean of the key measures of implicit learning: the mean of the difference between Learning Block 6 and Learning Block 1; Learning Block 6 vs Testing Block; Recovery Block vs Testing Block), and explicit task performance (based on the mean performance on the Sequence Completion task and Grammaticality Judgement Task). These two measures were highly correlated (r = 0.71, p < 0.001). However, a substantial amount of this effect was driven by the three good learners and removing them from the analysis reduces the correlation substantially (r = 0.47, p = 0.02). However, given that no learning occurred in the SRT-AGL task in the majority of the participants, any correlations are unlikely to be informative, as they mostly reflect noise in the learning data.

At a group level, these results provide no clear evidence of nonadjacent dependency learning using either processing-based measures (SRT-AGL task) or reflection-based tasks (Sequence Completion and Grammaticality Judgement tasks). Evidence of learning of the nonadjacent dependencies was found in only a small minority of the participants, and while the correlation between implicit and explicit performance in these participants is intriguing, the majority of the sample showed no evidence of learning in either the SRT-AGL or subsequent Sequence Completion and Grammaticality Judgement tasks.

Discussion

In Experiment 1, we found no evidence of learning across the SRT-AGL task at a group level. Participants’ reaction times to the predictable ‘B’ elements did not decrease across grammatical blocks, and there was no difference in reaction times to these predictable ‘B’ elements between the grammatical and ungrammatical blocks. In the subsequent Sequence Completion and Grammaticality Judgement task, group performance was at chance levels. However, despite not finding evidence of learning at a group level, we did see very high levels of performance in the sequence completion and grammaticality judgement tasks in a small subset of participants (3 out of 28). These three participants also performed as predicted in the implicit SRT-AGL task. This bimodal distribution of performance is somewhat surprising, suggesting an almost binary distinction between those who learn the dependencies (most likely explicitly) and perform well on all the tasks, compared to those who show no measurable learning in either the implicit or more explicit tasks. Although the learners were defined based on their performance in the explicit tasks, these participants also showed learning in the prior SRT-AGL task. This suggests that these learners had acquired some knowledge that benefitted them in the SRT-AGL task, and which they could access more explicitly in the subsequent Sequence Completion and Grammaticality Judgement tasks. We do not highlight this pattern of results to suggest that this experiment successfully elicited learning. Rather, we aim to highlight the opposite point, that even if our results had been significant at the group level, had this bimodal pattern of results persisted we would be unwilling to claim that we found evidence for learning at the population level, when the majority of the population actually showed no such effect. When a group level effect is driven by a small number of (outlier) participants, we believe it is prudent to be sceptical of this task as an effective measure of learning.

At a group level we saw no evidence of learning in the Sequence Completion and Grammaticality Judgement tasks, even though such tasks have been used successfully in more traditional AGL paradigms. These AGL experiments typically consist of an exposure phase, where participants are exposed to grammatical sequences, followed by testing using a Grammaticality Judgement task. In the exposure phase, participants are instructed to attend to the stimuli with no distractions, to provide an opportunity for learning to take place. In the present experiment there was no passive exposure phase, instead participants were exposed to the dependencies during the SRT-AGL task’s learning blocks. It is possible that the design of the task—in which participants attended to an auditory cue, identified its visual counterpart, then selected it, before moving on to the next element in the sequence–resulted in participants processing each element individually, rather than processing the sequence as a whole, as they might during a passive exposure phase. This may lead to the lack of learning we observed in this experiment (as we consider further in the General Discussion).

The findings from this experiment differed from those of Misyak et al [20], upon which this experiment was based. One other possible explanation for the conflicting results is the slight difference in the intervening ‘X’ elements used in this study: in Misyak et al.’s experiment, the ‘X’ elements were bisyllabic, meaning that they were perceptually distinct from the ‘A’ and ‘B’ elements, a difference which is thought to facilitate learning of the dependencies between the ‘A’ and ‘B’ elements [15]. In the current experiment, the ‘A’, ‘X’ and ‘B’ elements were all monosyllabic, meaning there were fewer perceptual cues that could be used to make the dependencies between the ‘A’ and ‘B’ elements more salient. While some previous research has suggested that nonadjacent dependencies are difficult for adults to learn without these additional cues (for a review, see [15]), many studies have shown successful learning of nonadjacent dependencies without using these bisyllabic stimuli (in adults: [47–49] and in infants: [50, 51]). Nevertheless, it is possible that the lack of any cues that differentiated the ‘A’, ‘X’, and ‘B’ elements could have made learning more difficult. Therefore, in Experiment 2, we used stimuli drawn from three different categories for the different element types.

In Experiment 1, we aimed to adapt Misyak et al. [20], to establish an effective processing-based measure of implicit statistical learning that could, in the future, be used to measure individual differences in learning, particularly in individuals with language difficulties, where nonsense words may not be appropriate. Given that this experiment failed to show implicit learning, we made several adaptations to the task, both to try and increase the chances that the task would elicit and measure implicit learning, and to make it more appropriate for individuals with language difficulties. Therefore, in Experiment 2 we aimed to improve the SRT-AGL task by using familiar objects as stimuli. We also introduced perceptual categories for the ‘A’, ‘X’ and ‘B’ elements with the goal of making the relationship between the ‘A’ and ‘B’ elements more salient. Furthermore, this modification removes the requirement for reading in the task, which makes it more appropriate when testing individuals with language difficulties.

Experiment 2: Non-linguistic audio-visual SRT-AGL task

The key aim of these experiments was to develop a task, based on the original SRT-AGL paradigm [19, 20], that can be used to measure individual differences in implicit statistical learning, particularly in individuals with language difficulties. People with language difficulties like dyslexia often have problems reading, and particularly reading nonsense words that depend more heavily on phonological decoding [40]. Therefore, in this experiment we modified the task to remove the requirement to read the nonsense word stimuli, using familiar objects (i.e., animals, plants and food objects) instead of non-words. This allowed us to present auditory cues while the participant responded to visual stimuli, without requiring reading. Moreover, we used different categories of objects for the ‘A’, ‘X’ and ‘B’ stimuli, in an attempt to add perceptual cues that may facilitate learning (see General Discussion, and [15]).

The predictions for Experiment 2 remain the same as in Experiment 1: If the SRT-AGL task can effectively measure implicit statistical learning, then we would predict faster reaction times to the ‘B’ elements relative to the ‘A’ elements across Learning Blocks, followed by slower reaction times in the ungrammatical Testing Block, before restoration to faster reaction times in the final Recovery Block. Following the SRT-AGL task, participants completed the same Sequence Completion and Grammaticality Judgement tasks, using the new familiar object stimuli. As in Experiment 1, if learning had occurred and was consciously accessible, we would also predict that performance on the SRT-AGL tasks would correlate with performance during the subsequent, more explicit tasks. By contrast, if implicitly learned knowledge is inaccessible for conscious decision making, we would predict no correlation between the SRT-AGL task and the explicit tasks [43, 44].

Methods

Participants

Thirty-eight adult participants (29 female, 7 male; mean age = 21.1) were recruited for Experiment 2. Sixteen participants were recruited using the Institute of Neuroscience participant pool at Newcastle University. An additional 22 participants were recruited through the Department of Psychology participant pool at Emory University. Testing methods and stimuli were identical regardless of testing location. All participants had normal or corrected to normal hearing and vision.

Stimuli

Experiment 2 used the same grammar as Experiment 1 (based on Gómez et al. [45]). To remove the requirement that participants must read the visual nonsense words, we replaced these stimuli with familiar objects drawn from the Bank of Standardized Stimuli Phase 2 [52] (Fig 3). As in Experiment 1, we used 3 ‘A’, 3 ‘B’ and 24 ‘X’ elements, all represented by familiar objects. In this experiment, in an attempt to improve learning by providing additional cues to the categories of stimuli, all of the ‘A’ elements corresponded to plants, the ‘B’ elements corresponded to foods, and the ‘X’ elements corresponded to animals (see Fig 3). The auditory stimuli were the names of the images, naturally spoken by a female native English speaker recorded with an Edirol R-09HR (Roland) sound recorder and their amplitude was root-mean-square (RMS) balanced. The stimuli were presented at 70dB. The duration of all auditory stimuli was 600ms. The visual stimuli were presented at a size of 300 by 300-pixels, in colour on a white background, displayed against a black screen (Fig 3).

10.1371/journal.pone.0308653.g003 Fig 3 Experiment 2 stimuli.

The ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘X’ elements corresponded to plants, foods and animals respectively. The ‘A’ and ‘B’ elements always co-occurred, and sequences were presented in the form ‘AXB’ (e.g., ‘tree cat bread’). There are 3 ‘A’ and ‘B’ elements and 24 possible ‘X’ elements giving a total of 72 possible grammatical sequences. Each sequence was presented once in each Learning and Recovery Block (see Methods).

Procedure

Other than the new stimuli, the SRT-AGL task was identical to in Experiment 1, consisting of 6 Learning Blocks of 72 trials each, a Testing Block (24 trials) and finally a Recovery Block (72 trials). The sequences used in each block were designed and balanced identically to Experiment 1. The Sequence Completion Task and Grammaticality Judgement Tasks were also identical to that in Experiment 1, except using the new stimuli.

Data analysis

The data were analysed in the same way as in Experiment 1.

Results

As in Experiment 1, we conducted a repeated measures ANOVA with Block (8 blocks) as a within-subjects factor to assess whether there were any changes in reaction time across blocks. We predicted that reaction times (measured as RTA-B) would decrease from Learning Block 1 to Learning Block 6 as the participants implicitly learned the nonadjacent dependency between ‘A’ and ‘B’ elements, and that reaction times would increase in the Testing Block before decreasing again in the Recovery Block. There was a significant main effect of Block (F3.52,130.07 = 7.212, p < .001, η2p = 0.163, 90% CIs = [0.0616, 0.240]): planned comparisons showed participants’ reaction times were faster in Learning Block 6 compared to Learning Block 1 (t37 = -3.84, p < .001, d = -0.623, 95% CIs = [-0.967, -0.271]; Fig 4A), showing that participants responded faster to the final ‘B’ elements at the end of the experiment. However, we saw no differences in reaction times between Learning Block 6 and the Testing Block (t37 = 1.92, p = 0.062, d = -0.312, 95% CIs = [-0.016, 0.636]) or the Testing Block and the Recovery Block (t37 = -1.49, p = 0.145, d = -0.242, 95% CIs = [-0.563, 0.083]). Therefore, again, these data do not provide convincing evidence that participants learned the dependencies in the SRT-AGL task.

10.1371/journal.pone.0308653.g004 Fig 4 Experiment 2 results.

A) Mean reaction time differences (RTA-B ± SEM, thick blue line) for the 6 Learning Blocks, the Testing Block containing ungrammatical sequences (highlighted in pink), and the Recovery Block. Individual data is shown in grey. B) Mean (± SEM) performance on the sequence completion task. Individual performance is shown in circles. Good learners are shown in green (based on individual binomial tests, p < 0.05), non-learners are shown in red (p > 0.05). C) Mean performance (± SEM) on the grammaticality judgement task, including learners and non-learners, as in B. D) Mean reaction time differences (RTA-B ± SEM) highlighting the good learners based on the sequence completion and grammaticality judgement tasks, showing the predicted pattern of responses. E) Mean reaction time differences (RTA-B ± SEM) for the non-learners on the sequence completion and grammaticality judgement tasks, showing no learning on the SRT-AGL task.

In the Sequence Completion task, we observed performance somewhat above chance levels (t37 = 2.582, p = 0.014, d = 0.419, 95% CIs = [0.084, 0.748]; Fig 4B), suggesting that some learning may have occurred. However, as in Experiment 1, there was a clear bimodal distribution of responses with some participants (5 out of 16) performing at ceiling levels, while the rest performed near chance. In the Grammaticality Judgement task group performance was no better than chance levels (t37 = 1.57, p = 0.125, d = 0.255, 95% CIs = [-0.070, 0.576]; Fig 4C). However, the same five participants performed at very high levels (>90% correct). This pattern of results is very similar to those observed in Experiment 1, with the majority of participants showing no learning effects, while a subset of participants performed at very high levels. As in Experiment 1, we examined performance on the SRT-AGL task separately for these learners and non-learners based on their performance on the sequence completion and grammaticality judgement tasks. The ‘learners’ (7 out of 38 participants) showed the predicted pattern of learning in the SRT-AGL task (Fig 4D and 4E), mirroring the findings from Experiment 1. We again compared performance on composite measures of performance on the SRT-AGL task (the mean of the difference between Learning Block 6 and Learning Block 1; Learning Block 6 vs Testing Block; Recovery Block vs Testing Block) and the two more explicit tasks (mean of performance on the Sequence Completion and Grammaticality Judgement tasks). As in Experiment 1, these measures were highly correlated (r = 0.69, p = 0.003). However, this again driven by the seven participants who showed good learning, and when they were removed from the analysis the correlation disappeared (r = -0.24, p = 0.47). Once again, given that we found little evidence of learning, a lack of correlation between this performance and any other measure is unsurprising; if we were largely only measuring noise in the data, no correlations should be expected.

Discussion

The results of Experiment 2 are very similar to those of Experiment 1, with no evidence of learning in the SRT-AGL task (no significant differences between Learning Block 6 and the Testing Block, or the Testing Block and the Recovery Block). Mixed evidence of learning was found for the explicit tasks, as group performance was above chance in the Sequence Completion task, but not above chance in the Grammaticality Judgement task. As in Experiment 1, any evidence of learning at a group level across the tasks was driven by a small subset of participants who performed very well across all the tasks.

In Experiment 2, we used new stimuli, familiar objects from three distinct categories, to provide additional cues to the ‘A’, ‘X’ and ‘B’ elements. However, despite these changes we found no convincing evidence of learning at the group level. This raises the question about whether the lack of effects in Experiments 1 and 2 are due to the stimuli we selected, or the design of the SRT-AGL task itself. Therefore, we designed a final experiment that contained several modifications, with the goal of trying to elicit implicit statistical learning.

In Experiment 3 we adapted the stimuli of the SRT-AGL task to avoid the requirement that participants read nonsense words (as in Experiment 1) or possess any prior linguistic knowledge (the names of objects in Experiment 2), by using abstract visual stimuli. As the abstract shapes do not have names, we used visual instead of auditory cues to indicate which stimuli the participants should choose. The participants were shown the target image in the centre of the screen, and the participants was asked to select the matching image. We also modified the design of the experiment so that instead of initially presenting several blocks of grammatical trials before a testing block, we now interspersed ungrammatical trials throughout each block, which may allow us to observe the trajectory of learning throughout the experiment. Finally, we also created two conditions: the first containing nonadjacent dependencies, as in Experiments 1 and 2; and the second containing dependencies between adjacent stimuli. It is possible that the use of nonadjacent dependencies, which can be difficult to learn [15], may account for the poor performance across Experiments 1 and 2. Therefore, we included a condition with adjacent dependencies, which are typically easier to learn [6, 10, 12, 53], to ensure that the difficulty of the dependencies was not hindering performance in the SRT-AGL task.

Experiment 3: Visual SRT-AGL task

Although beyond the scope of the current experiments, we hoped to design an SRT-AGL task that could in future be used to measure implicit statistical learning in individuals with language difficulties, such as dyslexia. In Experiment 3, in order to create a version of the SRT-AGL task that does not rely on processing auditory linguistic information, we created a completely visual version of the task, using abstract shapes as stimuli, and replacing auditory cues with visual cues. By using abstract shapes, the participants could not rely on knowing the names of objects, removing individual differences in familiarity with the object names.

We also revised the design of the SRT-AGL task: in the original [20] task, and in our Experiments 1 and 2, the SRT-AGL task comprised of 6 Learning Blocks, followed by one Testing Block, and one Recovery Block. Using this design, reaction times for grammatical and ungrammatical sequences cannot be compared until the testing block close to the end of the experiment. To assess the trajectory of learning across the SRT-AGL task, in Experiment 3 we implemented an oddball design, removing the Testing and Recovery Blocks and interspersing a small number of ungrammatical sequences (hereafter referred to as ‘low frequency’ sequences due to the removal of discrete learning and testing phases), into each of the Learning Blocks containing primarily “grammatical” (high frequency) sequences.

We also introduced an additional reflection-based measure of learning, the ‘Sequence Generation’ task, which was completed after the Sequence Completion and Grammaticality Judgement tasks. In this task, participants were asked to create their own 3-element-long sequences that fit the same pattern they had seen previously. In this task, participants were not provided with any cues as to which stimuli to select. The Sequence Generation task was included to assess the extent to which any sequence knowledge that was obtained was available to consciousness, as the ability to generate and complete sequences would suggest more explicit knowledge of the structure [41, 42]. If the participants had conscious awareness of the dependencies, then performance on the Sequence Generation task should correlate with performance on the other tasks.

To ensure that poor performance in Experiments 1 and 2 could not be attributed to difficulties in learning nonadjacent dependencies, we also tested learning of adjacent dependencies. We also reduced the number of ‘A’ and ‘B’ elements in this task from three to two. This meant that both pairs of stimuli (A1 and B1, and A2 and B2) were always shown on the screen in each trial (one as the target and one as the foil). This change was made so that both dependencies could be displayed on the screen throughout the experiment, with the goal of increasing their salience and facilitating learning by helping participants track the relationships between these consistently presented elements.

We predicted faster reaction times to the ‘B’ elements relative to the ‘A’ elements across Learning Blocks for high frequency sequences, but not low frequency sequences. More specifically, we predicted that there would be an interaction between Learning Block and the grammaticality of the sequence: in the initial Learning Blocks, there would be no difference between reaction times for high and low frequency sequences, however as learning occurs, we predicted that reaction times for the predictable ‘B’ element relative to the unpredictable ‘A’ element would decrease for high frequency sequences, but not low frequency sequences. As in the previous two experiments, we predicted above chance performance in the sequence completion and grammaticality judgement tasks. If learning is consciously accessible, we would expect participants who showed evidence of learning in the SRT-AGL task to also show above chance performance in the subsequent, more explicit Sequence Completion, Grammaticality Judgement and Sequence Generation tasks. If implicitly learned knowledge is not accessible for explicit processing, we would predict no correlation between the SRT-AGL task and the explicit tasks.

Methods

Participants

32 participants (23 female, 9 male; mean age: 21.86) were recruited using both the School of Psychology and Institute of Neuroscience participant pools at Newcastle University. 17 participants completed the adjacent condition, and 15 participants completed the nonadjacent condition.

Stimuli

We used 28 abstract shapes (2 ‘A’, 2 ‘B’ and 24 ‘X’ stimuli) based on shapes from [5], shown in Fig 5. Unlike the Experiments 1 and 2, there were no auditory stimuli in this experiment, instead the abstract shapes were used as cues, with the participants being instructed to select the matching shape to the cue. The use of these abstract shapes meant that it was difficult to categorise the ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘X’ stimuli in the same way as in Experiment 2, meaning there were no additional category-based cues in Experiment 3 that could facilitate learning.

10.1371/journal.pone.0308653.g005 Fig 5 Experiment 3 stimuli.

The ‘A’ and ‘B’ elements always co-occurred, and sequences are presented in the form ‘AXB’ in the nonadjacent version of the task, and ‘XAB’ in the adjacent version. There are 2 ‘A’ and ‘B’ elements, and 24 ‘X’ elements. 24 sequences were presented per block, with each ‘X’ element presented once per Learning Block. 20 of the sequences in each block were high frequency (e.g., A1XB1), and for the 4 low frequency sequences, the dependencies between the ‘A’ and ‘B’ elements were switched around (e.g. A1XB2; A2XB1).

Procedure

First, participants completed the visual SRT-AGL task, followed by the Sequence Completion, Grammaticality Judgement and Generation tasks.

SRT-AGL task

In the visual SRT-AGL task, participants completed 8 blocks of 24 trials, consisting of 20 high frequency and 4 low frequency sequences. As in Experiments 1 and 2, in each trial, 6 abstract shapes (Fig 5) were presented on the screen (Fig 6). For each of the three horizontal positions in the sequence in turn, a cue stimulus matching one of the target shapes appeared between the targets after a 500ms delay (Fig 6). Participants were told to click on the matching shape as quickly as possible. The cue remained on the screen until the participant had selected a shape. As in Experiments 1 and 2, feedback on the speed of participant’s responses was given after every trial, however in this experiment, happy or unhappy ‘smiley faces’ were presented on screen instead of scores. This was to remove the need to read any text during the task, which may not be suitable for any potential future testing with individuals with language difficulties. Participants were provided with the opportunity to take a break half-way through the experiment between blocks 5 and 6.

10.1371/journal.pone.0308653.g006 Fig 6 Trial design for Experiment 3.

A) Visual SRT-AGL task showing the nonadjacent condition (for an example of the adjacent condition, see S3 Fig in S1 File). On each trial participants were presented with an array of 6 visual abstract shapes. In the nonadjacent condition, every trial contained 2 ‘A’ elements in the left column, 2 randomly selected ‘X’ elements in the middle column, and 2 ‘B’ items in the right column. In the adjacent condition, we presented 2 randomly ‘X’ elements in the left column, 2 ‘A’ elements in the middle column, and 2 ‘B’ elements in the right column. Participants were sequentially presented with a visual cue corresponding to one of the two visual stimuli in each column, and were asked to click on the matching visual stimulus as quickly as possible (see Methods). B) Sequence Completion task. As in the SRT-AGL task, participants were presented with a visual array of stimuli and responded to the first two visual cue stimuli as before. However, the final visual cue stimulus was replaced with a question mark, and the participants were asked to guess the shape that they felt completed the sequence. C) Generation task. In each of the 24 trials, the participants were presented with 8 elements arranged in a circle on the screen: the 2 ‘A’ and ‘B’ elements were always shown, as well as 4 randomly selected, non-repeating ‘X’ elements. Participants created their sequences by clicking on the desired elements in order.

Sequence Completion task

The SRT-AGL task was immediately followed by the Sequence Completion task. As in Experiments 1 and 2, an array of 6 target elements was presented on the screen, and the first two cue elements were presented and responded to as normal. Instead of the final cue stimulus, the participants were presented with a question mark and asked to guess which target stimulus correctly completed the sequence (see Fig 6 and S3 Fig in S1 File). Participants completed 24 trials: each of the ‘X’ elements was presented once, and half of the sequences contained A1 (with the correct response being B1) and the other half of the sequences containing A2 (with the correct response being B2).

Grammaticality Judgement task

The Grammaticality Judgement task consisted of 24 trials in total, half of which were high and half low frequency sequences. In each trial, the entire visual sequence was presented simultaneously on screen. The method of response was identical to the previous two experiments, and the sequence remained on screen until the participant’s response had been made.

Sequence Generation task

In this task participants were instructed to create 3 element long sequences, following the same pattern they had seen previously. In each of 24 trials, the participants were presented with 8 elements arranged in a circle on the screen: the 2 ‘A’ and ‘B’ elements were always shown, as well as 4 randomly selected, non-repeating ‘X’ elements. Participants created their sequences by clicking on stimuli in order. Each trial was separated by a 500ms inter-trial interval. No feedback was given.

Data analysis

In the visual SRT-AGL task, for both the non-adjacent and adjacent conditions, we calculated reaction time differences: RTDifference = low frequency RTA-B−high frequency RTA-B. We used a repeated measures ANOVA to compare reaction time differences to high and low frequency sequences across blocks. Performance in the Sequence Completion and Grammaticality Judgement task was compared to chance (50%) using one sample t-tests. To correlate performance on the implicit SRT-AGL task with the more explicit tasks, Pearson’s correlation coefficients were calculated.

Results

In this experiment, there was no evidence of learning of the adjacent or nonadjacent dependencies across any of the tasks. We hypothesised that implicit learning would result in quicker responses to the predictable ‘B’ element than to the unpredictable ‘A’ element on high frequency trials relative to low frequency trials. The inclusion of high and low frequency sequences within every block of the SRT-AGL task differs from the SRT-AGL tasks in Experiments 1 and 2, which consisted of either grammatical or ungrammatical blocks. Therefore, within each block of the SRT-AGL task, for both the non-adjacent and adjacent conditions, we calculated reaction time differences: RTDifference = low frequency RTA-B−high frequency RTA-B. If learning had occurred, then this difference would increase across blocks. We conducted a 2x8 ANOVA, with Blocks (1 to 8) as within-subjects factors, and the Task (nonadjacent or adjacent) as between subject factors. We found no significant effect of Block (F7,210 = .498, p = .758, η2p = 0.016, 90% CIs = [0, 0.016]) or Task (F1,30 = .431, p = .516, η2p = 0.014, 90% CIs = [0, 0.014]), or a Block*Task interaction (F4,135 = 1.133, p = .345, η2p = 0.036, 90% CIs = [0, 0.053]),), which suggests that there were no differences in reaction times between the high and low frequency sequences in either the adjacent or nonadjacent conditions (see Fig 7). To determine whether reaction times were faster for high frequency over low frequency sequences across the experiment, we added an additional within-subjects factor of Grammaticality to the mixed ANOVA. There was no significant main effects (Grammaticality: F1,30 = 0.024, p = .878, η2p = 0.00079, 90% CIs = [0, 0.053]; Block: F4.7,141.3 = .301, p = .953, η2p = 0.009, 90% CIs = [0, 0.011]; Task: F1,30 = 2.27, p = .143, η2p = 0.070, 90% CIs = [0, 0.238]) or interactions between conditions (Grammaticality*Block: F4.5,134.9 = .498, p = .758, η2p = 0.016, 90% CIs = [0, 0.0311]; Grammaticality*Task: F1,30 = .431, p = .516, η2p = 0.014, 90% CIs = [0, 0.140]; Block*Task: F4.7,141.3 = 1.18, p = .322, η2p = 0.038, 90% CIs = [0, 0.0708]; Grammaticality*Block*Task: F4.5, 134.9 = 1.13, p = .345, η2p = 0.036, 90% CIs = [0, 0.0703]).

10.1371/journal.pone.0308653.g007 Fig 7 Experiment 3 results.

Participants completed either the adjacent (A-D) or nonadjacent (E-H) task. Panels A and E show the difference in mean A—B reaction times (RTdifference ± SEM) between high and low frequency sequences across blocks in the adjacent and nonadjacent tasks respectively. Individual data is shown in grey. Panels B and F show mean (± SEM) performance in the Sequence Completion task in the adjacent and nonadjacent tasks respectively. Individual performance is shown in circles: ‘good learners’ are shown in green (based on individual binomial tests for the Grammaticality Judgement task, p < 0.05), non-learners are shown in red (p > 0.05). Panels C and G show mean performance (± SEM) on the Grammaticality Judgement task in the adjacent and nonadjacent tasks respectively. Panels D and H show mean performance (± SEM) in the Sequence Generation task in the adjacent and nonadjacent tasks respectively.

Participants also did not perform above chance in any of the explicit tasks. In the adjacent condition, participants performed slightly below chance on the Sequence Completion task (t16 = -2.27, p = .037, d = -0.551, 95% CI = [-1.055,-0.032]). In the subsequent Grammaticality Judgement task, participants performed at chance levels (t16 = -.965, p = .348, d = -0.234, 95% CI = [-0.713, 0.252]). In the nonadjacent condition, participants did not perform significantly above chance in either the Sequence Completion task (t14 = 1.438, p = 0.172, d = 0.371, 95% CI = [0.159, 0.889]) or Grammaticality Judgement task (t14 = 1.00, p = .334, d = 0.258, 95% CI = [-0.261, 0.769]). Unlike Experiments 1 and 2, we did not see a bimodal distribution in which some participants showed learning whereas others did not. Although two participants performed well in the nonadjacent Grammaticality Judgement task, this was not reflected in their performance across the SRT-AGL and Sequence Completion tasks.

Participants completed the Sequence Generation task to assess the extent to which any sequence knowledge that was obtained was available to conscious evaluation. As mentioned previously, the ability to generate and complete sequences would suggest more explicit knowledge of the structure [41, 42]. The Sequence Generation task required participants to create their own 3-element-long sequences based on the pattern they had seen previously. Although participants’ performance was generally poor in this task, unlike the previous reflection-based tasks, there was no clear chance level that we could use to compare their performance to. Therefore, we examined whether participants who showed good performance on the explicit tasks were also more likely to produce grammatical sequences in the Sequence Generation task. We found no correlations between performance in the Sequence Generation task and performance in either the Sequence Completion (adjacent: r = .28, p = .269; nonadjacent: r = .24, p = .395) or Grammaticality Judgement (adjacent: r = .16, p = .529; nonadjacent: r = .479, p = .071) tasks. This was unsurprising given that only one participant showed evidence of learning across the experiment.

We also calculated composite measures of SRT-AGL performance based on the RT(A-B) difference between high and low frequency trials between Learning Block 1 and Learning Block 8, and explicit task performance (based on the mean performance in the Sequence Completion, Grammaticality Judgement, and Sequence Generation tasks). These measures were not correlated in either the nonadjacent (r = -.308, p = .264) or adjacent conditions (r = .122, p = .640), although this is again not surprising given the lack of learning across all tasks.

Discussion

In this experiment we aimed to assess implicit statistical learning using a visual serial reaction time task that did not rely on any prior semantic or linguistic knowledge, with the hope of developing a task that could be used in other groups, including people with language difficulties. However, as in Experiments 1 and 2, we found no evidence of learning in the SRT-AGL task or the more explicit Sequence Completion, Grammaticality Judgement and Sequence Generation tasks, in either the nonadjacent or even very simple adjacent condition. Moreover, we only identified a single participant who showed good performance across the Sequence Completion, Grammaticality Judgement and Sequence Generation tasks, and this participant showed no evidence of learning in the visual SRT-AGL task. This may suggest that participating in the SRT-AGL task may inhibit learning that may have otherwise occurred during a standard AGL task.

We assessed learning using more explicit testing methods: the Sequence Completion, Grammaticality Judgement and Sequence Generation tasks. As in Experiments 1 and 2, there was no evidence of learning at the group level across these tasks in either the nonadjacent or adjacent condition. This could again be attributed to the lack of exposure phase that is typically found in artificial grammar learning paradigms. As in the audio-visual versions of the task (Experiments 1 and 2), completing the visual SRT-AGL task may act as a distraction, and draw attention away from the dependencies, resulting in a lack of learning and therefore poor performance across tasks. The lack of nonadjacent dependency learning in this task could be attributed to the more general inconsistency of learning of these dependencies reported in the literature (for a review, see [15]). However, lack of learning of simple adjacent relationships, particularly in the Grammaticality Judgement task, is unexpected, as previous research using these tasks has shown that adjacent relationships are typically learned readily without any additional cues [6, 10, 12, 53]. These findings strongly suggest that the complexity of nonadjacent relationships is not responsible for the lack of learning across these experiments. Instead, as outlined above, completing the SRT-AGL task itself may have inhibited learning of both types of dependency.

Experiment 3 showed no evidence of learning in a visual SRT-AGL task, or in subsequent explicit tasks, mirroring the findings of the previous two experiments. We made changes to the design of the SRT-AGL task to measure the trajectory of learning of the dependencies, which failed. The fact that participants did not learn the simple adjacent dependencies as well as the more complex nonadjacent dependencies suggests that the SRT-AGL paradigm failed to induce or measure learning of even simple relationships, as we discuss further in the General Discussion.

General discussion

Implicit statistical learning has been studied using a wide range of paradigms over the course of the last 50 years [6, 12, 54]. However, many of these studies directly asked participants to categorise stimuli based on their grammaticality or ‘well-formedness’. It is possible that these reflection-based measures might not capture some of the important aspects of implicit learning, which could be more accurately measured using more implicit, processing-based measures of learning. Therefore, in three experiments, we aimed to assess artificial grammar learning implicitly, using reaction time data, as well as more explicitly using both novel and more traditional assessments of implicit learning.

In all three experiments, we found no evidence of learning in either the SRT-AGL task or more explicit Grammaticality Judgement, Sequence Completion and Sequence Generation tasks. Additionally, as the majority of the participants in each experiment showed no evidence of learning across any of the tasks, it is difficult to draw conclusions as to whether the tasks measure similar processes.

At a group level, the data from all three experiments support the null hypothesis that implicit statistical learning of the dependencies did not occur. However, at an individual level, there is evidence that a small number of participants did learn the grammar and performed very well across all tasks. Moreover, in Experiments 1 and 2, their performance on the processing-based SRT-AGL task and the subsequent reflection-based tasks were highly correlated. This suggests that in Experiments 1 and 2, we do not see evidence of learning in the processing-based tasks without also seeing evidence of learning in the reflection-based tasks, which may suggest that participants explicitly learned the dependencies during the SRT-AGL task, or that they did learn this information implicitly but were then subsequently able to explicitly access this during the explicit tasks. However, the results from these experiments are not able to separate these two possibilities. In either case, the vast majority of our participants failed to show any learning across all of the tasks. Therefore, we cannot conclude that this is an effective measure of implicit statistical learning, or that it is suitable for characterization of individual differences in implicit statistical learning in people with or without language difficulties.

SRT-AGL tasks aim to use reaction times to provide a processing-based measure of implicit statistical learning which is not confounded by spatial information. Previous research has shown that they can be effective measures of implicit statistical learning [19, 20, 46], and in our experiments we aimed to adapt the task to be more suitable for testing individuals with language difficulties in the future. We failed to show learning at a group level in all three experiments, despite a small number of participants showing predicted patterns of learning. The findings from these experiments raise the question of why these SRT-AGL tasks did not induce implicit statistical learning for most individuals. In traditional serial reaction time (SRT) tasks, participants are required to respond based on spatial positions [24], where one location predicts another, which relies on motor learning [27, 55, 56]. However, in SRT-AGL tasks, whilst the participants must still locate the elements on the screen, it is the stimuli that predict one another, not the location. This design was to ensure that participants learned the relationships between the stimuli, however it also meant that the participants only need to attend to the shapes enough to identify their key features, which could be less salient. It is possible that matching auditory or visual cues to their respective visual stimuli in the SRT-AGL task did not cause participants to take notice of the dependencies between stimuli, resulting in a lack of learning in the SRT-AGL tasks compared to more traditional SRT tasks. Specifically, the design of this task required that participants attend to an auditory or visual cue, then identify the appropriate target, then select it, before moving on to the next element in the sequence. It is possible that this design caused them to attend to each element of the sequence separately, rather than processing the whole sequence holistically, which might be more likely in a passive exposure condition. Therefore, attention to each individual element of the sequence may have hindered learning of the relationships between the elements, leading to the lack of learning of either adjacent or nonadjacent dependencies observed here. We note that SRT-AGL tasks have been used successfully in the past [19, 20], and we cannot fully account for why we found different results here. Rather, we note that despite three experiments and many modifications of the experimental design, we were unable to elicit learning via SRT-AGL tasks.

Although there was little evidence of learning across these three experiments, it is important to ensure that this data is available to contribute to the literature. Recent research has stressed the importance of publishing null results for the progression of science [57] and to avoid file drawer problems and publication bias [58], both of which have been reported within the implicit statistical learning literature [59–62]. Furthermore, in order to reveal more about the key mechanisms underlying implicit statistical learning, it is important to understand which tasks do not induce or measure learning as well as those that do.

Identifying an implicit method of measuring implicit statistical learning abilities remains highly important, as many current measures of implicit statistical learning are primarily reflection-based, and therefore any attempt to measure the mechanisms underlying implicit statistical learning using such tasks may actually reflect explicit, conscious decision-making processes [18]. Although these SRT-AGL tasks find no evidence of learning, there is still a need for processing-based measures of implicit statistical learning that are not affected by conscious reflection. Recently, serial recall tasks have been used to measure implicit statistical learning more implicitly [21–23, 60]. As there was little evidence of implicit statistical learning across these SRT-AGL tasks, serial recall tasks may be a more useful processing-based measure that is able to provide a graded measure of performance over the course of the experiment, to better reflect the mechanisms underlying implicit statistical learning and reveal more about individual differences in these abilities.

Supporting information

S1 File This file contains all supporting information for this manuscript including: S1 Table: duration of breaks taken during experiment; S2 Table: descriptive statistics; S1 Fig: analyses of reaction times based on X element (RTX-B); S2 Fig: reaction times for each element (A, X and B) for all experiments; S3 Fig: methods for Experiment 3, adjacent condition.

(DOCX)

We thank Chris Petkov and Morten Christiansen for useful discussion.

10.1371/journal.pone.0308653.r001
Decision Letter 0
Blake John Academic Editor
© 2024 John Blake
2024
John Blake
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Submission Version0
16 Jan 2024

PONE-D-23-24683Assessing Processing-Based Measures of Implicit Statistical Learning: Three Serial Reaction Time Tasks Do Not Reveal Artificial Grammar LearningPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Wilson,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

In light of the feedback from the reviews, you are recommended to follow the detailed suggestions provided by all the reviewers. In particular, all reviewers note the need to refine your study's methodology and clarify its theoretical underpinnings for a more impactful contribution. Focus on enhancing the robustness and explanation of your experimental design, ensuring it is systematically structured and aligned with established protocols. Additionally, a key area for improvement is in articulating a clear theoretical framework, particularly in distinguishing between implicit and explicit learning processes.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 01 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

John Blake, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2.Note from Emily Chenette, Editor in Chief of PLOS ONE, and Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, Director of Open Research Solutions at PLOS: Did you know that depositing data in a repository is associated with up to a 25% citation advantage (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230416)? If you’ve not already done so, consider depositing your raw data in a repository to ensure your work is read, appreciated and cited by the largest possible audience. You’ll also earn an Accessible Data icon on your published paper if you deposit your data in any participating repository (https://plos.org/open-science/open-data/#accessible-data).

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests/Financial Disclosure * (delete as necessary) section:

"The research was funded by a Sir Henry Wellcome Fellowship (BW: WT110198/Z/15/Z) and by ORIP/P51OD011132. (https://wellcome.org/). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

We note that you received funding from a commercial source: "Wellcome Trust"

Please provide an amended Competing Interests Statement that explicitly states this commercial funder, along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, marketed products, etc.

Within this Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests).  If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include your amended Competing Interests Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Please note that your Data Availability Statement is currently missing  a direct link to access each database. If your manuscript is accepted for publication, you will be asked to provide these details on a very short timeline. We therefore suggest that you provide this information now, though we will not hold up the peer review process if you are unable.

 5. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Review of “Assessing processing-based measures of implicit statistical learning: Three serial reaction time tasks do not reveal artificial grammar learning”

MS: PONE-D-23-24683

This paper examined an implicit learning of nonadjacent (in Experiments 1 and 2) and adjacent (between-subjects condition in Experiment 3) statistical regularities in three experiments using an AGL paradigm and a SRT task. In Experiment 1 (auditory stimuli), Experiment 2 (object stimuli with semantic information), and Experiment 3 (nonsense object stimuli), the authors did not observe the results suggesting implicit statistical learning, except for the sequence completion task in Experiment 2. The authors discussed the differences from the results of previous studies using the AGL paradigm in terms of the differences in the experimental paradigm (e.g., no familiarization/learning phase, number of syllables in X elements, response to spatial locations etc.).

The manuscript was interesting and the experimental results were clear. However, I have several concerns about the manuscript that should be addressed before the paper is published.

Major issue:

The authors pointed out the reproducibility of implicit statistical learning, however, did not describe in detail how this study was conducted. For example, I guess Experiment 1 used nonsense word and auditory stimuli, yet Figure 1 displayed nonsense object stimuli, such as those used in Experiment 3. I guess Figure 1 is a copy of Figure 6, and this is an error. Although Experiment 3 examined learning of both adjacent and nonadjacent regularities, Figure 6 shows only the examples of nonadjacent regularities; Figure 6 should also include examples of adjacent regularity condition.

In the SRT task, subjects were asked to click the same stimulus as the cue with the mouse, but it is unclear where the starting position of the mouse cursor was. Since the starting position of the mouse cursor is critical to RT to click the target, this point should be described in detail.

Moreover, an index of statistical learning in the SRT task is the difference of RT to B from that to A. This is also unclear. For example, because this detection task is so simple, the RT of most subjects could have shown a floor effect from Block 1. If this is true, then it is possible to point out that the SRT task used in this study simply failed to detect implicit statistical learning, and it is not true that implicit learning effect was not observed in the SRT task using the AGL paradigm. The authors should discuss this point as well (Not all readers will check the OSF data).

Furthermore, while this study discussed whether statistical learning is implicit or explicit, several previous studies on visual statistical learning have examined whether statistical learning is based on an implicit process (e.g., Bertels et al., 2012, JEPLMC; Cox et al., 2022, QJEP). They used subjective confidences (e.g., remember/know and post-decision wagering; see Persaud et al., 2007, Nat Neurosci) as well as a target detection task (Kim et al., 2009, Neurosci Lett; Rawal & Tseng, 2021, JEPHPP). The authors should discuss not only the relationship between these previous studies and this study, but also why the authors did not use measures such as subjective confidences.

The authors discussed for the lack of implicit/explicit statistical learning on the lack of exposure phase in the Discussion of Experiments 1 and 2, and on the lack of response to spatial locations in the General Discussion. Therefore, it is not clear for the readers why the current study could not replicate the results of previous studies. The authors should provide a consistent discussion as to why they could not replicate the results of previous studies. The authors should also discuss their results in relation to studies in which statistical learning was observed after categorical judgments in observing regularities (Turk-Browne et al., 2010, J Neurosci).

Minor points:

I think the authors should correct the title of this study. “Three serial reaction time tasks”: I would be mistaken by this title to think that this study used three types of serial reaction time tasks.

The sample size in this study differs across experiments. In particular, the sample size in Experiment 2 was smaller than in the other experiments, but learning effects were observed only in the sequence completion task in this experiment. The authors should describe how to decide the sample size in this study.

Effect sizes and confidence intervals should be described in the results. Because the conclusions of this study are based on null effects, the Bayes factor should also be described.

The authors discussed that implicit statistical learning was observed only in small sample size. However, the discussion based on the data of three subjects in Experiment 1, five in Experiment 2, and two in Experiment 3 is not necessary even for descriptive statistics because the sample sizes were very small.

The authors discussed the following between Experiment 1 and Experiment 2:

“However, it is possible that this could be attributed to differences in the ‘X’ stimuli between experiments. Misyak et al. used bisyllablic ‘X’ elements, which may have differentiated the ‘X’ elements from the ‘A’ and ‘B’ elements, and thus provided additional cues to the relationships between the monosyllabic ‘A’ and ‘B’ elements (Wilson et al., 2020). Therefore, to facilitate learning of the dependencies in Experiment 2, we provided additional cues to the categories of the stimuli…”

I think it is strange that the authors dealt with the number of syllables in X elements and categorical information of elements in the same way as cues for implicit statistical learning. They also discussed that categorical information in each element facilitates statistical learning. If this is true, they should cite some previous studies. Wilson et al. (2020) did not use visual objects with categorical information.

･ In these experiments… (Line 121): In this study?

･ we first aimed to replicate the original results (Misyak et al., 2009)… (Line 127): Why did the authors change the number of syllables in X elements?

･ In all three experiments…with language difficulties (Lines 162-184): I think these should be described in the General Discussion.

･ We used a repeated measures ANOVA was used to compare reaction time differences to grammatical and ungrammatical sequences across blocks? (Lines 753-755)

Reviewer #2: General comments:

As being familiar to the challenges of SL research, and especially measuring individual differences in SL, I was very happy to read a manuscript with null results, and I think the authors here set a good example by aiming to publish them. However, there are two aspects that make me concerned about the manuscript. First, the three studies are not systematically designed (although I could see why and how they follow from each other). For instance, I think that matching auditory and written form of nonwords, images and auditory labels of known objects and identical images involve different cognitive processes. Also, in Experiment 3, the measurement method also significantly changed. These do not necessarily pose a problem. But, and here comes my second concern, I think that the results are underinterpreted. The results from the three experiments point to the explanation that SRT-AGL tasks are not appropriate measurement methods for SL, and the authors also give some explanation related to the role of the perceptual discriminability of "X" elements and the role of attention. However, I missed a comprehensive discussion about why Misyak et al. (2009; 2010) could get significant learning compared to the present three experiments. In Experiment 1, the authors explain the null results of NAD learning with the lack of perceptual distinctness. However, in Experiment 2 and Experiment 3, this issue is eliminated (either by making "X" elements discriminable in Exp. 2, or by introducing adjacent dependencies in Exp. 3). Here, the authors shift to the explanation about the effect of attention in the task. To summarize, prior to publishing, I think that the manuscript needs a thorough, comprehensive (and maybe more unitary?) discussion about what could cause the null results compared to the original Misyak et al. results.

As a second general comment that might be helpful for the authors is related to their theoretical framing of SL. They separate implicit and explicit processes to discriminate more "pure" forms of SL and other processes. However, in my view, if we look at phenomenon-based definitions of SL (given that we lack an exact mechanism-level account), then the basic property of SL is that it is an unsupervised, bottom-up learning process (e.g., Conway, 2020), and implicitness is only a by-product, not a necessary property. Therefore, I'm not convinced either that the key to the reliable measurement of statistical learning is that we measure implicit representations, but rather that we exclude other cognitive processes theoretically independent from SL (e.g., executive functions, reasoning, etc.). Measuring explicit learning with "reflection-based" processes might also not be a perfectly proper approach, as implicitness does not necessarily exclude learning effects in these measures (moreover, it seems that scores on "processing-based" and "reflection-based" measures correlate more when learning is implicit, see Lukics & Lukács, 2021). Although, if the real aim of the manuscript is separating explicit vs. implicit processes, than the author's approach is proper, but I felt confused about the real aim of the studies (discriminating implicit vs. explicit processes, or discriminating "real" SL and other cognitive processes, and thus targeting SL abilities). This is not a fundamental issue with the manuscript, and I know that the levels of explanation are mixed in the literature, as well, (implicitness vs. explicitness and "pure" SL vs. the effect of other cognitive functions), however, this might be an interesting aspect for the authors to think about, and they should state the aim of the studies more explicitly.

Specific comments:

page 11, row 103: See also Lammertink et al. (2019; 2020), and Lukics & Lukács (2021) for other instances of SRT-like measures for SL, and Hunt & Aslin (2001) for an early adaptation of the SRT paradigm.

page 14, row 162: This paragraph would fit better in the General Discussion.

page 14, row 173: "Furthermore, file drawer problems...": For me, this seems to be again a matter for the discussion. Or did the authors hypothesize the null results originally?

page 15, row 186: I would not necessarily divide the General Methods section into subsections: it might be a bit misleading, and the reader would expect e.g. the exact stimuli in the Stimuli subsection. But this is just a comment, I will leave it to the authors!

page 15, row 201: I would mention the details of the ethical approval here and only refer back to it in the Participant subsections in the given experiment.

page 16, row 225: "Therefore...": Did the authors think about including unpredictable element ("X" element) RTs as a baseline? Do the authors know that the RTs for the initial "A" elements are reliable? Baseline RTs in participants (processing speed) should have a high reliability (> 0.8), and it might be worth assessing the reliability of "A" element RTs. I'm not sure about it, but I suspect that RTs for the initial elements are less reliable than those of the following elements, and might be more exposed to fluctuations, thus including more noise.

page 17, row 237: I think that all post-hoc tasks consisted of 24 trials, but it should be stated everywhere.

page 17, row 255: "were presented with sequences of three stimuli": Were these with novel or with old "X" elements, that is, did this require generalization?

page 24, row 404: "However...": A binomial test is a perfect statistical solution for discriminating learners from non-learners, but if participants really performed on chance level, then their performance in only noise, and there is absolutely no sense of a correlation between noise and implicit learning measures after removing learners. Maybe some participants "unlearned" dependencies during the Testing block and systematically chose the incorrect "B" responses for some given trials? It might be interesting to look at whether chance level performances are truly random on the individual level. However, given the results of Experiment 2 and Experiment 3, it can indeed be the case that this correlation is the result of mere chance.

page 27, row 440: "Misyak and Christiansen (2012)...": I recommend the Lammertink et al. (2019; 2020) papers. Maybe the SRT-AGL task used by Misyak et al. recruits more reasoning / hypothesis testing processes than e.g., the method of Lammertink et al.?

page 27, row 446: Do the authors think that this perceptual distinction promotes more explicit reasoning / hypothesis generation? This might be supported by the more emphasized bimodal distribution of the original Misyak et al. study, as well. Or does perceptual discrimination affect bottom-up, unsupervised learning as well? How infant studies support one solution or another? (This leads to a more general question, maybe worth discussing in the General Discussion: if such a level of perceptual discrimination is needed for NAD learning to take place, is this really SL according to the definition of SL (see Conway, 2020), or more likely reflect, e.g., reasoning / hypothesis testing abilities? But this is only a suggestion that the authors, of course, don't have to accept.)

page 28, row 461: "It is possible...": Do the authors think that it drew attention away from the unsupervised form of SL? Or again, is it a matter of intentional learning in the case of NAD learning?

page 31, row 508: including 16 participants in Experiment 2 compared to the sample sizes of Experiment 1 and Experiment 3 seems to be unjustified for me. Did the authors conduct a power analysis prior to the data collection?

page 31, row 525: "The duration of all nonsense word stimuli was 600ms.": Were these then auditory labels of objects or nonsense words?

page 47, row 859: "The fact that participants...": What mechanisms could cause this in the task? I already mentioned this in the general comments, but this is an instance where the authors should be more explicit about it (or in the General Discussion).

Minor comments:

page 9, row 53: "similar processes are involved" --> "similar processes are assumed to be involved"

page 14, row 165: "However...": it is not clear how the two parts of this sentence follow from each other.

page 30, row 484: "instead using familiar objects (i.e., animals, plants and food objects) instead of non-words": first instance of "instead is unnecessary".

page 43, row 770: "AVOVA" --> "ANOVA"

In general, the authors might would like to follow APA 7 formatting.

The link pointing to the OSF repository doesn't work for me, although I could find the repository by the title of the manusript.

References:

Hunt, R. H., & Aslin, R. N. (2001). Statistical learning in a serial reaction time task: access to separable statistical cues by individual learners. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130(4), 658.

Lammertink, I., Van Witteloostuijn, M., Boersma, P., Wijnen, F., & Rispens, J. (2019). Auditory statistical learning in children: Novel insights from an online measure. Applied Psycholinguistics, 40(2), 279-302.

Lammertink, I., Boersma, P., Wijnen, F., & Rispens, J. (2020). Children with developmental language disorder have an auditory verbal statistical learning deficit: Evidence from an online measure. Language Learning, 70(1), 137-178.

Lukics, K. S., & Lukács, Á. (2021). Tracking statistical learning online: Word segmentation in a target detection task. Acta Psychologica, 215, 103271.

Reviewer #3: This paper reports weak to null findings for learning artificial grammars from SRT-based tasks, which were adapted from some prior studies (e.g., Misyak et al., 2009). The experiments were motivated by the need to identify learning measures that would better gauge implicit expressions of statistical learning across individuals, and it was hoped that RT processing-based measures from the adapted tasks would serve this role. In light of weak to no evidence for learning across their three experiments, the authors pin this failure on the SRT-AGL task methodology itself, concluding that the training tasks may have inhibited learning.

The methods and analyses are clearly described, and the experiments are well motivated within the literature. I have four primary comments:

(1)

A main limitation of the paper is that it doesn’t demonstrate that the grammars and stimuli are robustly learnable under other comparable conditions, leaving the specific effect of the task method (i.e., the “SRT-AGL”) unclear.

E1, in particular, adapts the nonadjacent grammar from Gómez (2002) that has been used across several studies in the statistical learning (SL) literature, but changes the syllable construction of the middle elements of the strings. The authors acknowledge this may have critically affected the results, and the referenced explanation from Wilson et al. 2020 seems plausible here. E2 and E3 introduce further changes in more visually-based versions, with E3 converting the grammar to one with adjacent dependencies for half the participants. (It is presumed, as a generalization, that adjacent dependencies are easier to learn, although this is not always the case and will depend on learning conditions.)

There is no mention of participants being able to otherwise learn (at the group-level) — either by the authors or elsewhere — from these specific altered grammars and training materials using other training tasks. One possibility is that the altered grammar presentations are relatively difficult to learn on their own merits, irrespective of the choice of task method. Another possibility is that the SRT-AGL implementation is harder to learn from (compared to a more traditional AGL task), which can result in null or weak findings for more difficult grammar iterations (as may be the case here) but not for more robust ones. Either possibility could account for the differences between the authors’ findings and those in the prior literature.

It would be informative to the authors’ claims if participants’ levels of learning from these specific grammar versions were ascertained using other AGL or SL tasks (ideally with the same stimuli using comparable amounts of training exposure, stimuli duration, etc.). For the grammars in E3, this would actually include exposure to ungrammatical strings during the training phase, as consistent with the approximately 17% of ungrammatical sequences presented in that training regime. I appreciate that this may entail using less ‘implicit’ assessment measures by the authors’ standards.

But in the absence of such evidence for learnability, the contribution (if any) of the SRT-AGL based task to produce this failure is unclear. The claims of the paper and the discussion should reflect this limited scope for conclusions.

(2)

Related to the above, E1 is not an exact replication of Misyak et al., 2009 — and seemingly not a close one given various differences, some of which may have been critical.

While the grammar may appear ostensibly the same in E1, the syllable structure of the middle elements was changed (as noted above); and different stimuli were necessarily used in implementing this change. As the authors concede that this change may have undermined learning, I won’t expand on this point here, other than to underscore that it is unclear whether, and to what extent, people readily learn the Gómez grammar with this modification.

Another potentially substantial difference relates to the inclusion of an optional mid-task break, which could be a source of variability across participants in reaction times for the later blocks, from which the test comparisons were derived. (The authors don’t report the proportion of participants who opted for the break, and whether the duration of the break was allowed to vary across participants, so more information in this regard may address the extent to which this concern is relevant.)

There are further differences in E1, though perhaps not vital ones, and of course, the task and measures become increasingly more altered across E2 and E3.

In light of such distinctions, would it be more appropriate to refer to the task more consistently as an adaptation, rather than replication? In any event, it may be helpful to readers unfamiliar with the original work to explicitly identify all the various differences in E1; this might also inform generalizability of the task to different parameters.

(3)

What is the scientific rationale for the reduced sample (16) in E2, relative to E1 (28)?

E2 does report evidence of learning on one of the three processing-based measures, and on one of the two post-processing measures. The remaining measures show trending or directionally consistent indications of learning.

However, the sample size seems small in this context, particularly for reaction time differences that may be expected to be small. Could this experiment have been underpowered to detect learning?

(E3 also has similarly small sample sizes.)

(4)

E3 alters the SRT-AGL task by removing the ‘testing’ block of ungrammatical sequences and replacing this with an oddball design where a small number of ungrammatical sequences are interspersed with the grammatical sequences throughout. RT metrics are then computed with respect to differences between responses for grammatical and ungrammatical sequences per block.

However, the proportion of ungrammatical sequences (1 out of 6) seems potentially high for artificial grammar training. At this rate, the ungrammatical sequences may be perceived as a lower-frequency regularity of the grammar (i.e., as consistent with the grammar) — with consequences, of course, for participants’ learning and their expression of that learning.

At the same time, the corresponding number of ungrammatical sequences (4) is low per block. Using such an extremely low number of items in the calculation of a difference score would be expected to detrimentally affect the reliability of that test measure.

Either or both of these aspects could be contributors to the null findings of E3. As in pt. (3) above, some attention to and discussion of these issues are warranted.

In sum, there are myriad issues that could have contributed to null findings across the authors’ experiments. As these are left unresolved, the authors should revise their discussion and claims accordingly to take these considerations into account.

As an aside:

Although I do believe these experiments have restricted scope and are inconclusive on the merits/deficits of the processing-based measures, per the points above, I am sympathetic to the concerns the authors have about these SRT-based and traditional AGL tasks in sensitively gauging implicit learning, especially at the level of individual differences for learning as it unfolds over time. There can be issues regarding the psychometric reliabilities of reaction times more generally, which perhaps these adapted tasks and online measures may have inherited. I don’t expect the authors to delve into these issues in their paper, but do appreciate the complexity of this matter and wish them success in future investigations.

Other points:

The wrong file appears to be uploaded for Fig.1. (Figures 1 and 6 are identical.)

Lines 111-112: “random sequences containing no predictable dependencies” --> technically not random, as some grammatical structure was retained (the initial/middle/final positional status of nonsense words) and the predictive dependencies were systematically broken

Reference information for Conway 2005 and Misyak et al. 2009 are incomplete. Missing information for Pacton et al. 2015 citation.

Lines 265-266: for clarity, I assume this is the mean for each subject?

What are the RT means or mean differences for the reported results? While differences are presumably minimal to nil, these are hard to read from the manner in which the figures are scaled and the values are unreported in the text.

Lines 440-441: The bimodal distribution was reported for performance from a *standard AGL* task and grammaticality test measure. Those same authors’ report of performance on an analogous metric to the ‘Sequence Completion’ measure, elicited after using the AGL-SRT task, shows more of a continuum (Misyak et al., 2010, Topics in Cognitive Science).

Line 515: “Gomez et al. 2002” --> Gómez 2002

For E1 and E2, how many items were in the Sequence Completion and Grammaticality Judgment tasks?

The Figure 6 caption should clarify that it illustrates the nonadjacent (and not adjacent) condition of the visual task.

Line 802: “adjacent Sequence Generation task” --> Sequence Generation task

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

10.1371/journal.pone.0308653.r002
Author response to Decision Letter 0
Submission Version1
10 Jun 2024

Detailed responses are provided in our response to reviewers document.

10.1371/journal.pone.0308653.r003
Decision Letter 1
Blake John Academic Editor
© 2024 John Blake
2024
John Blake
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Submission Version1
29 Jul 2024

Assessing Processing-Based Measures of Implicit Statistical Learning: Three Serial Reaction Time Experiments Do Not Reveal Artificial Grammar Learning

PONE-D-23-24683R1

Dear Dr. Wilson,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

John Blake, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have addressed all of my concerns. The manuscript makes an interesting contribution to the literature.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

10.1371/journal.pone.0308653.r004
Acceptance letter
Blake John Academic Editor
© 2024 John Blake
2024
John Blake
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
11 Sep 2024

PONE-D-23-24683R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Wilson,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. John Blake

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE
==== Refs
References

1 Kidd E. Implicit statistical learning is directly associated with the acquisition of syntax. Dev Psychol. 2012;48 : 171–184. doi: 10.1037/a0025405 21967562
2 Misyak JB , Christiansen MH . Statistical learning and language: An individual differences study. Language Learning. 2012;62 : 302–331.
3 Romberg AR , Saffran JR . Statistical learning and language acquisition. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science. 2010;1 : 906–914. doi: 10.1002/wcs.78 21666883
4 Aslin RN , Saffran JR , Newport EL . Computation of conditional probability statistics by 8-month-old infants. Psychological science. 1998;9 : 321–324.
5 Fiser J , Aslin RN . Unsupervised statistical learning of higher-order spatial structures from visual scenes. Psychological science. 2001;12 : 499–504. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00392 11760138
6 Saffran JR , Aslin RN , Newport EL . Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science. 1996;274 : 1926–1928. doi: 10.1126/science.274.5294.1926 8943209
7 Saffran JR . The Use of Predictive Dependencies in Language Learning. Journal of Memory and Language. 2001;44 : 493–515. doi: 10.1006/jmla.2000.2759
8 Statistical Learning in a Natural Language by 8‐Month‐Old Infants—Pelucchi—2009—Child Development—Wiley Online Library. [cited 5 Sep 2024]. https://srcd.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01290.x?casa_token=FwjA1EZe3eUAAAAA%3AxF9MR_heHhJEKyiFbk7mjUPGdCvJTbkUq2tpgRdj7_upVMDE9AePOXMZXJQY-GJxGp_HKUX5u0rt92pl4Q
9 Fiser J , Aslin RN . Statistical learning of higher-order temporal structure from visual shape sequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 2002;28 : 458. doi: 10.1037//0278-7393.28.3.458 12018498
10 Gebhart AL , Newport EL , Aslin RN . Statistical learning of adjacent and nonadjacent dependencies among nonlinguistic sounds. Psychonomic bulletin & review. 2009;16 : 486–490. doi: 10.3758/PBR.16.3.486 19451373
11 Gomez RL , Gerken L . Artificial grammar learning by 1-year-olds leads to specific and abstract knowledge. Cognition. 1999;70 : 109–135. doi: 10.1016/s0010-0277(99)00003-7 10349760
12 Reber AS . Implicit learning of artificial grammars. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior. 1967;6 : 855–863.
13 Saffran J , Hauser M , Seibel R , Kapfhamer J , Tsao F , Cushman F . Grammatical pattern learning by human infants and cotton-top tamarin monkeys. Cognition. 2008;107 : 479–500. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.10.010 18082676
14 Gomez RL , Gerken L . Artificial grammar learning by 1-year-olds leads to specific and abstract knowledge. Cognition. 1999;70 : 109–135. doi: 10.1016/s0010-0277(99)00003-7 10349760
15 Wilson B , Spierings M , Ravignani A , Mueller JL , Mintz TH , Wijnen F , et al . Non‐adjacent dependency learning in humans and other animals. Topics in cognitive science. 2020;12 : 843–858. doi: 10.1111/tops.12381 32729673
16 Conway CM , Pisoni DB . Neurocognitive basis of implicit learning of sequential structure and its relation to language processing. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2008;1145 : 113–131. doi: 10.1196/annals.1416.009 19076393
17 Reber AS . Implicit learning of synthetic languages: The role of instructional set. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory. 1976;2 : 88.
18 Christiansen MH . Implicit statistical learning: A tale of two literatures. Topics in cognitive science. 2019;11 : 468–481. doi: 10.1111/tops.12332 29630770
19 Christiansen MH , Misyak JB , Tomblin JB . Statistical learning of nonadjacencies predicts on-line processing of long-distance dependencies in natural language. 2009.
20 Misyak JB , Christiansen MH , Tomblin JB . On-line individual differences in statistical learning predict language processing. Frontiers in psychology. 2010;1 : 1618. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00031 21833201
21 Isbilen ES , McCauley SM , Kidd E , Christiansen MH . Testing statistical learning implicitly: A novel chunk-based measure of statistical learning. Cognitive Science Society; 2017. pp. 564–569.
22 Isbilen ES , McCauley SM , Kidd E , Christiansen MH . Statistically induced chunking recall: A memory‐based approach to statistical learning. Cognitive science. 2020;44 : e12848. doi: 10.1111/cogs.12848 32608077
23 Kidd E , Arciuli J , Christiansen MH , Isbilen ES , Revius K , Smithson M . Measuring children’s auditory statistical learning via serial recall. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. 2020;200 : 104964. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2020.104964 32858420
24 Nissen MJ , Bullemer P . Attentional requirements of learning: Evidence from performance measures. Cognitive psychology. 1987;19 : 1–32.
25 Reber PJ , Squire LR . Parallel brain systems for learning with and without awareness. Learning & memory. 1994;1 : 217–229. 10467599
26 Thomas KM , Hunt RH , Vizueta N , Sommer T , Durston S , Yang Y , et al . Evidence of developmental differences in implicit sequence learning: an fMRI study of children and adults. Journal of cognitive neuroscience. 2004;16 : 1339–1351. doi: 10.1162/0898929042304688 15509382
27 Conway CM . An odyssey through sight, sound, and touch: Toward a perceptual theory of implicit statistical learning. Cornell University; 2005.
28 Lammertink I , Boersma P , Wijnen F , Rispens J . Children with developmental language disorder have an auditory verbal statistical learning deficit: Evidence from an online measure. Language Learning. 2020;70 : 137–178.
29 Lammertink I , Van Witteloostuijn M , Boersma P , Wijnen F , Rispens J . Auditory statistical learning in children: Novel insights from an online measure. Applied Psycholinguistics. 2019;40 : 279–302.
30 Lukics KS , Lukács Á . Tracking statistical learning online: Word segmentation in a target detection task. Acta Psychologica. 2021;215 : 103271. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2021.103271 33765521
31 Hunt RH , Aslin RN . Statistical learning in a serial reaction time task: access to separable statistical cues by individual learners. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 2001;130 : 658. doi: 10.1037//0096-3445.130.4.658 11757874
32 West G , Vadillo MA , Shanks DR , Hulme C . The procedural learning deficit hypothesis of language learning disorders: We see some problems. Developmental science. 2018;21 : e12552. doi: 10.1111/desc.12552 28256101
33 Krishnan S , Watkins KE . A challenge for the procedural deficit hypothesis: How should we measure sequential learning in childhood? Developmental science. 2019;22 . doi: 10.1111/desc.12815 30773757
34 Bertels J , Franco A , Destrebecqz A . How implicit is visual statistical learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 2012;38 : 1425. doi: 10.1037/a0027210 22329789
35 Cox JA , Aimola Davies AM . Age differences in visual statistical learning: Investigating the effects of selective attention and stimulus category. Psychology and Aging. 2022;37 : 698. doi: 10.1037/pag0000697 35878102
36 Kim R , Seitz A , Feenstra H , Shams L . Testing assumptions of statistical learning: is it long-term and implicit? Neuroscience letters. 2009;461 : 145–149. doi: 10.1016/j.neulet.2009.06.030 19539701
37 Persaud N , McLeod P , Cowey A . Post-decision wagering objectively measures awareness. Nature neuroscience. 2007;10 : 257–261. doi: 10.1038/nn1840 17237774
38 Rawal A , Tseng P . The effect of visual statistical learning in RSVP: Implicit learning or stream location artifact? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 2021;47 : 1246. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000988 33539166
39 Turk-Browne NB , Scholl BJ , Johnson MK , Chun MM . Implicit perceptual anticipation triggered by statistical learning. Journal of Neuroscience. 2010;30 : 11177–11187. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0858-10.2010 20720125
40 Snowling M. Dyslexia as a phonological deficit: Evidence and implications. Child Psychology and Psychiatry Review. 1998;3 : 4–11.
41 Destrebecqz A , Cleeremans A . Can sequence learning be implicit? New evidence with the process dissociation procedure. Psychonomic bulletin & review. 2001;8 : 343–350. doi: 10.3758/bf03196171 11495124
42 Wilkinson L , Shanks DR . Intentional control and implicit sequence learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 2004;30 : 354. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.30.2.354 14979810
43 Dienes Z , Berry D . Implicit learning: Below the subjective threshold. Psychonomic bulletin & review. 1997;4 : 3–23.
44 Dienes Z , Altmann G . Transfer of implicit knowledge across domains: How implicit and how abstract? How implicit is implicit learning? New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press; 1997. pp. 107–123.
45 Gomez RL . Variability and detection of invariant structure. Psychological Science. 2002;13 : 431–436. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00476 12219809
46 Vuong L , Meyer A , Christiansen M . Simultaneous online tracking of adjacent and non-adjacent dependencies in statistical learning. 2011.
47 Frost RL , Monaghan P . Simultaneous segmentation and generalisation of non-adjacent dependencies from continuous speech. Cognition. 2016;147 : 70–74. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2015.11.010 26638049
48 Vuong LC , Meyer AS , Christiansen MH . Concurrent statistical learning of adjacent and nonadjacent dependencies. Language Learning. 2016;66 : 8–30.
49 Jenkins HE , Smith F , Riches NG , Wilson B , Petkov C . Poster: Artificial Grammar Learning Tasks using Speech Stimuli Reveal Intact, but Slower, Sequence Processing in Dyslexia. 2024.
50 Newport EL , Aslin RN . Learning at a distance I. Statistical learning of non-adjacent dependencies. Cognitive psychology. 2004;48 : 127–162. doi: 10.1016/s0010-0285(03)00128-2 14732409
51 Mueller JL , Friederici AD , Männel C . Auditory perception at the root of language learning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2012;109 : 15953–15958. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1204319109 23019379
52 Brodeur MB , Guérard K , Bouras M . Bank of Standardized Stimuli (BOSS) phase II: 930 new normative photos. PloS one. 2014;9 : e106953. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0106953 25211489
53 Pacton S , Sobaco A , Perruchet P . Is an attention-based associative account of adjacent and nonadjacent dependency learning valid? Acta Psychologica. 2015;157 : 195–199. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2015.03.002 25819598
54 Reber PJ . The neural basis of implicit learning and memory: A review of neuropsychological and neuroimaging research. Neuropsychologia. 2013;51 : 2026–2042. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.06.019 23806840
55 Heyes C , Foster C . Motor learning by observation: evidence from a serial reaction time task. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A. 2002;55 : 593–607.
56 Robertson EM . The serial reaction time task: implicit motor skill learning? Journal of Neuroscience. 2007;27 : 10073–10075. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2747-07.2007 17881512
57 Haeffel GJ . Psychology needs to get tired of winning. Royal Society Open Science. 2022;9 : 220099. doi: 10.1098/rsos.220099 35754994
58 Rosenthal R. The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological bulletin. 1979;86 : 638.
59 van Witteloostuijn M , Boersma P , Wijnen F , Rispens J . Visual artificial grammar learning in dyslexia: A meta-analysis. Research in developmental disabilities. 2017;70 : 126–137. doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2017.09.006 28934698
60 Isbilen ES , Christiansen MH . Statistical learning of language: A meta‐analysis into 25 years of research. Cognitive Science. 2022;46 : e13198. doi: 10.1111/cogs.13198 36121309
61 Schmalz X , Altoè G , Mulatti C . Statistical learning and dyslexia: A systematic review. Annals of dyslexia. 2017;67 : 147–162. doi: 10.1007/s11881-016-0136-0 27766563
62 Schmalz X , Moll K , Mulatti C , Schulte-Körne G . Is statistical learning ability related to reading ability, and if so, why? Scientific Studies of Reading. 2019;23 : 64–76.
