CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 370

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Implicit learning as an ability

Kaufman, Scott Barry, DeYoung, Colin G., Gray, Jeremy R., Jiménez, Luis, Brown, Jamie, Mackintosh, Nicholas·2010·Cognition
DOI 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.05.011
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The ability to automatically and implicitly detect complex and noisy regularities in the environment is a fundamental aspect of human cognition. Despite considerable interest in implicit processes, few researchers have conceptualized implicit learning as an ability with meaningful individual differences. Instead, various researchers (e.g., Reber, 1993; Stanovich, 2009) have suggested that individual differences in implicit learning are minimal relative to individual differences in explicit learning. In the current study of English 16-17year old students, we investigated the association of individual differences in implicit learning with a variety of cognitive and personality variables. Consistent with prior research and theorizing, implicit learning, as measured by a probabilistic sequence learning task, was more weakly related to psychometric intelligence than was explicit associative learning, and was unrelated to working memory. Structural equation modeling revealed that implicit learning was independently related to two components of psychometric intelligence: verbal analogical reasoning and processing speed. Implicit learning was also independently related to academic performance on two foreign language exams (French, German). Further, implicit learning was significantly associated with aspects of self-reported personality, including intuition, Openness to Experience, and impulsivity. We discuss the implications of implicit learning as an ability for dual-process theorie…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.05.011

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Two hypothesized measures of implicit aptitude, the SRT task and LLAMA D, have been found to significantly predict grades achieved in foreign-language classes, speech fluency, and pronunciation accuracy at intermediate to advanced L2 levels.

    “Indeed, two hypothesized measures of implicit aptitude, the serial reaction time (SRT) task and LLAMA D (further discussed below), have been found to significantly predict grades achieved in foreign-language classes (Kaufman et al., 2010), speech fluency (Granena, 2019), and pronunciation accuracy (Saito et al., 2019) at intermediate to advanced L2 levels.”

    From Aptitude for Explicit and Implicit Learning (2024) · cites this paper as Kaufman et al., 2010

  • The probabilistic SRT task is a proposed measure of implicit aptitude that seems to be accepted more widely.

    “Another proposed measure of implicit aptitude that seems to be accepted more widely is the probabilistic SRT task (Kaufman et al., 2010)”

    From Aptitude for Explicit and Implicit Learning (2024) · cites this paper as Kaufman et al., 2010

  • There is an absence of correlations between the SRT task and tests of explicit aptitude, phonological working memory and executive working memory.

    “as well as an absence of correlations between the SRT task and tests of explicit aptitude, PWM and EWM (Granena, 2019;Kaufman et al., 2010;Linck et al., 2013;Suzuki & DeKeyser, 2015).”

    From Aptitude for Explicit and Implicit Learning (2024) · cites this paper as Kaufman et al., 2010

  • These reliability indices are comparable to the reliability of similar tasks in previous studies.

    “These indices are comparable to the reliability of similar tasks in previous studies (Granena, 2013b;Kaufman et al., 2010;Suzuki & DeKeyser, 2015, 2017).”

    From Aptitude for Explicit and Implicit Learning (2024) · cites this paper as Kaufman et al., 2010

  • Cohen's d across the last 5 blocks was 0.75, a medium effect size substantially higher than the effect sizes reported in previous research (0.19 in Kaufman et al., 2010 and 0.21 in Suzuki and DeKeyser, 2015).

    “Cohen's d across the last 5 blocks was 0.75, suggesting a medium effect size that is substantially higher than the effect sizes reported in previous research: 0.19 in Kaufman et al. (2010) and 0.21 reported in Suzuki and DeKeyser (2015).”

    From Aptitude for Explicit and Implicit Learning (2024) · cites this paper as Kaufman et al. (2010)

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Kaufman, S. B., DeYoung, C. G., Gray, J. R., Jiménez, L., Brown, J., & Mackintosh, N.
Venue
Cognition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-09
Volume
116
Issue
3
Pages
321-340
ISSN
0010-0277
DOI
10.1016/j.cognition.2010.05.011
Cited by
370
References
6
Language
en
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review