The DOI matches its Crossref record; 90 of the 90 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Domain generality versus modality specificity: the paradox of statistical learning
Open accessAbstract
Statistical learning is typically considered to be a domain-general mechanism by which cognitive systems discover the underlying distributional properties of the input. Recent studies examining whether there are commonalities in the learning of distributional information across different domains or modalities consistently reveal, however, modality and stimulus specificity. An important question is, therefore, how and why a hypothesized domain-general learning mechanism systematically produces such effects. We offer a theoretical framework according to which statistical learning is not a unitary mechanism, but a set of domain-general computational principles, that operate in different modalities and therefore are subject to the specific constraints characteristic of their respective brain regions. This framework offers testable predictions and we discuss its computational and neurobiological plausibility.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Reducing the dimensionality of data with neural networks
Hinton, G. E., & Salakhutdinov, R. R. (2006) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1127647 · Cited by 20,928
Elman, J. L. (1990) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1402_1 · Cited by 11,212
The free-energy principle: a unified brain theory?
Friston, K. (2010) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn2787 · Cited by 8,120
Hearing lips and seeing voices
MCGURK, H., & MACDONALD, J. (1976) · Nature · doi:10.1038/264746a0 · Cited by 6,183
Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants
Saffran, J. R., Aslin, R. N., & Newport, E. L. (1996) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.274.5294.1926 · Cited by 5,659
McClelland, J. L., McNaughton, B. L., & O'Reilly, R. C. (1995) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.102.3.419 · Cited by 5,256
BrainNet Viewer: A Network Visualization Tool for Human Brain Connectomics
Xia, M., Wang, J., & He, Y. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0068910 · Cited by 4,106
Chomsky (1959) · doi:10.2307/411334 · Cited by 3,425
Where do you know what you know? The representation of semantic knowledge in the human brain
Patterson, K., Nestor, P. J., & Rogers, T. T. (2007) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn2277 · Cited by 2,706
Eimas, P. D., Siqueland, E. R., Jusczyk, P., & Vigorito, J. (1971) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.171.3968.303 · Cited by 2,154
Cited by
Neurobiology of Schemas and Schema-Mediated Memory
Gilboa, A., & Marlatte, H. (2017) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2017.04.013 · Cited by 742
Individual Differences in Language Acquisition and Processing
Kidd, E., Donnelly, S., & Christiansen, M. H. (2018) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2017.11.006 · Cited by 507
Self-citationSaffran, J. R., & Kirkham, N. Z. (2018) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011805 · Cited by 426
Statistical learning as an individual ability: Theoretical perspectives and empirical evidence
Siegelman, N., & Frost, R. (2015) · Journal of Memory and Language · doi:10.1016/j.jml.2015.02.001 · Cited by 317
Self-citationThe Developing Infant Creates a Curriculum for Statistical Learning
Smith, L. B., Jayaraman, S., Clerkin, E., & Yu, C. (2018) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2018.02.004 · Cited by 299
Metadata
- Authors
- Frost, R., Armstrong, B. C., Siegelman, N., & Christiansen, M. H.
- Venue
- Trends in Cognitive Sciences
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2015-03
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 117-125
- ISSN
- 1364-6613 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2020943857
- Cited by
- 564
- References
- 90
- FWCI
- 7.10
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Domain generality versus modality specificity: the paradox of statistical learning. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.tics.2014.12.010
- The paper
- Frost, R., Armstrong, B. C., Siegelman, N., & Christiansen, M. H. (2015). Domain generality versus modality specificity: the paradox of statistical learning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2014.12.010
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
