Cited by 70Memory and Neural MechanismsMemory Processes and InfluencesNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism

Chapter 5 Understanding failures of learning: Hebbian learning, competition for representational space, and some preliminary experimental data

McClelland, James L., Thomas, Adam G., McCandliss, Bruce D., Fiez, Julie A.·1999·Progress in Brain Research

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0079-6123(08)63068-x

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • Adult performance on non-native contrasts can be increased by techniques that minimize memory effects, extensive training, and use of contrasts not related to native-language categories.

    “Adult performance on non-native contrasts could be increased by a number of factors: (i) the use of techniques that minimize the effects of memory (33, 34), (ii) extensive training (35, 36), and (iii) the use of contrasts, such as Zulu clicks, that are not related to native-language categories (37, 38).”

    From A new view of language acquisition (2000) · cites this paper as [36]

  • New training studies suggest that exaggerating the dimensions of foreign language contrasts and providing listeners with multiple instances spoken by many talkers are effective training methods.

    “New training studies suggest that exaggerating the dimensions of foreign language contrasts (36), as well as providing listeners with multiple instances spoken by many talkers (113), are effective training methods.”

    From A new view of language acquisition (2000) · cites this paper as [36]

  • Feedback and reinforcement are not necessary in this process; listeners simply need the right kind of listening experience.

    “These studies show that feedback and reinforcement are not necessary in this process; listeners simply need the right kind of listening experience (36, 113).”

    From A new view of language acquisition (2000) · cites this paper as [36]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
McClelland, J. L., Thomas, A. G., McCandliss, B. D., & Fiez, J. A.
Affiliations
  • Center for the Neural Basis of Cognition (US)
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
Corresponding author
McClelland, James L.
Venue
Progress in Brain Research
Publisher
Elsevier
Published
1999
Volume
121
Pages
75-80
ISSN
0079-6123 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1860289377
Cited by
70
References
20
Citations by year
2024: 4 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 3
FWCI
6.03
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Progress in brain research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
Keywords
paired-associate learning, amnesia, Hebbian learning, interference, representational space, competition (biology), associative learning, memory impairment, word pair recall
MeSH terms
Humans, Learning, Learning Disabilities, Models, Psychological

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