Declarative and procedural memory abilities as individual differences in incidental language learning
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Hamrick (2015) demonstrated that these findings hold even when learners were merely exposed to the language under incidental learning conditions.
“Hamrick (2015) demonstrated that these findings hold even when learners were merely exposed to the language under incidental learning conditions.”
From Testing the three-stage model of second language skill acquisition (2025) · cites this paper as Hamrick, 2015
The findings point to an emerging role of procedural memory in later stages of L2 skill acquisition, consistent with skill acquisition theory, the D/P model, and previous research.
“Regardless of the specific nature of our procedural learning tasks, the findings point to the emerging role of procedural memory in later stages of L2 skill acquisition, which is consistent with skill acquisition theory, the D/P model, as well as the findings of previous research on the role of declarative and procedural memory in L2 learning (e.g., Hamrick, 2015;Morgan-Short et al., 2014;Pili-Mos”
From Testing the three-stage model of second language skill acquisition (2025) · cites this paper as Hamrick, 2015
Cites
Tulving, E. (1993) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/1467-8721.ep10770899 · Cited by 634 · see citing works
The Declarative/Procedural Model of Lexicon and Grammar
Ullman, M. T. (2001) · Journal of Psycholinguistic Research · doi:10.1023/a:1005204207369 · Cited by 508 · see citing works
The Cognitive Neuroscience of Memory: An Introduction
Eichenbaum, H. (2002) · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195141740.001.0001 · Cited by 323 · see citing works
Implicit statistical learning is directly associated with the acquisition of syntax
Kidd, E. (2012) · Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0025405 · Cited by 310 · see citing works
The Declarative/Procedural Model
Ullman, M. T. (2016) · Neurobiology of Language · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-407794-2.00076-6 · Cited by 294 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Testing the three-stage model of second language skill acquisition
Maie, R., & Godfroid, A. (2025) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s027226312500021x · Cited by 5 · see citing works
“Although current L2 research has provided indirect evidence that supports the existence of such developmental stages (e.g., Hamrick, 2015; Morgan-Short, Faretta-Stutenberg, Brill, Carpenter & Wong, 2014; Pili-Moss, Brill-Schuetz, Faretta-Stutenberg & Morgan-Short, 2020), the stages themselves have…”
Influential
- Authors
- Hamrick, P.
- Affiliations
- Kent State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Hamrick, Phillip
- Venue
- Learning and Individual Differences
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2015-12
- Volume
- 44
- Pages
- 9-15
- ISSN
- 1041-6080 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2190077435
- Cited by
- 89
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 7
- FWCI
- 3.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Learning and Individual Differences (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Keywords
- declarative memory, procedural memory, incidental language learning, second language acquisition, syntactic learning, individual differences, recognition memory, retention
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
