The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
WHY IS THE COMPONENTIAL CONSTRUCT OF IMPLICIT LANGUAGE APTITUDE SO DIFFICULT TO CAPTURE?: A COMMENTARY ON THE SPECIAL ISSUE
Abstract
Although this special issue reveals some promising achievements, most of the contributions show that tasks of implicit learning are not or are only weakly correlated with each other, and they have inconsistent predictive power on L2 acquisition. This commentary examines four possible explanations for this surprising pattern: The (suboptimal) selection of tasks, the low reliability of measures, the deep influence of the starting level even for nominally “new” implicit tasks, and the fact that the mastery of L2 may involve other implicit processes than implicit learning measured through laboratory tasks.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
The tasks used to measure implicit aptitude in L2 research to date are not necessarily highly reliable, often do not correlate with each other, and vary in their predictive power.
“At the same time, the tasks that have been used to measure implicit aptitude in L2 research to date are not necessarily highly reliable, often do not correlate with each other, and vary in their predictive power (Perruchet, 2021), so in this sense, caution is in order.”
From The role of individual learner differences in explicit language instruction (2024) · cites this paper as Perruchet, 2021
Citations
Cites
The reliability paradox: Why robust cognitive tasks do not produce reliable individual differences
Hedge, C., Powell, G., & Sumner, P. (2018) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-017-0935-1 · Cited by 1,457
DeKeyser, R. (2020) · Theories in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.4324/9780429503986-5 · Cited by 325
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 32
- 10.1080/14640749008401239 · DOI
- 10.1017/S0272263115000509 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1080/17470210802386375 · DOI
- 10.1098/rstb.2016.0059 · DOI
- 10.1037/h0046677 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2006.04.002 · DOI
- 10.3758/BF03199559 · DOI
- 10.1111/tops.12403 · DOI
- 10.22599/jesla.69 · DOI
- Fitts, 1967, Human performance
- 10.1177/1747021820941356 · DOI
- 10.1207/s15516709cog1601_1 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0022-5371(84)90282-2 · DOI
- Gebauer, 2007, Psychometric intelligence dissociates implicit and explicit learning, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 34
- 10.3758/BF03210772 · DOI
- 10.1037/0033-295X.95.4.492 · DOI · Paper page
- Anderson, 1983, The architecture of cognition
- 10.1017/S0142716418000796 · DOI
- Fitts, 1951, Handbook of experimental psychology
- Parshina, 2018, Proceedings of the 40th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 2202
- 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01074.x · DOI
- 10.1037/0033-295X.84.1.1 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1126/science.274.5294.1926 · DOI · Paper page
- McNemar, 1962, Psychological statistics
- 10.3758/s13423-020-01781-0 · DOI
- 10.1111/1467-8624.00521 · DOI
- 10.1006/cogp.1998.0681 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/lang.12368 · DOI
- 10.3758/s13423-020-01818-4 · DOI
- Anderson, 1993, Rules of mind
- 10.3758/BF03206216 · DOI
- Pacton, 2019, Spelling and writing words, 39, 40
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The role of individual learner differences in explicit language instruction
Roehr‐Brackin, K., Baranowska, K., Pavlekovic, R., & Scheffler, P. (2024) · The Modern Language Journal · doi:10.1111/modl.12963 · Cited by 9
Metadata
- Authors
- Perruchet, P.
- ORCID
- Perruchet, Pierre
- Venue
- Studies in Second Language Acquisition
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2021-07
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 677-691
- ISSN
- 0272-2631
- 1470-1545
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 2
- Language
- en
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
