Cited by 16

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Scrutinizing LLAMA D as a measure of implicit learning aptitude

Iizuka, Takehiro, DeKeyser, Robert·2024·Studies in Second Language Acquisition

Abstract

Since Gisela Granena’s influential work, LLAMA D v2, a sound recognition subtest of LLAMA aptitude tests, has been used as a measure of implicit learning aptitude in second language acquisition research. The validity of this test, however, is little known and the results of studies with this instrument have been somewhat inconsistent. In this study, we tested the hypothesis that researchers’ variable test instructions are the source of the inconsistent results. One hundred fourteen English monolinguals were randomly assigned to take LLAMA D v2 under one of three test instruction conditions. They also completed two implicit aptitude tests, three explicit aptitude tests, and a sound discrimination test. The results showed that, regardless of the type of test instructions, LLAMA D scores did not align with implicit aptitude test scores, indicating no clear evidence of the test being implicit. On the contrary, LLAMA D scores were negatively associated with scores on one implicit aptitude test, the Serial Reaction Time (SRT) task, but only in the condition where the instructions drew participants’ focal attention to the stimuli. This negative association was interpreted as focal attention working against learning in the SRT task. Implicit learning aptitude may be the degree to which one is able to process input without focal attention.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0272263122000559

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Iizuka and DeKeyser found that only the 'just listen' instructions resulted in a relationship between LLAMA D and the SRT task.

    “The researchers found that only the 'just listen' instructions that asked participants to carefully listen to the stimuli resulted in a relationship between LLAMA D and the SRT task.”

    From Aptitude for Explicit and Implicit Learning (2024) · cites this paper as Iizuka and DeKeyser (2023)

  • The relationship between LLAMA D and the SRT task under 'just listen' instructions was negative.

    “However, surprisingly, the relationship was negative.”

    From Aptitude for Explicit and Implicit Learning (2024) · cites this paper as Iizuka and DeKeyser (2023)

  • Iizuka and DeKeyser (2023) reported that when participants were instructed to 'just listen' to the sound sequences in LLAMA D, LLAMA D and SRT scores were negatively correlated.

    “A recent study (Iizuka & DeKeyser, 2023) investigating the effect of different types of LLAMA D instructions reported a similar finding when participants were instructed to 'just listen' to the sound sequences in LLAMA D.”

    From Aptitude for Explicit and Implicit Learning (2024) · cites this paper as Iizuka & DeKeyser, 2023

  • Focal attention may facilitate performance on LLAMA D but hinder performance on the SRT task.

    “Specifically, Iizuka and DeKeyser (2023) suggest that focal attention may facilitate performance on LLAMA D but hinder performance on the SRT task.”

    From Aptitude for Explicit and Implicit Learning (2024) · cites this paper as Iizuka & DeKeyser, 2023

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 82

  1. 10.1111/lang.12244 · DOI
  2. Williams, 2009, The new handbook of second language acquisition, 319
  3. 10.1080/13803395.2010.493149 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Cleeremans, 1998, Handbook of implicit learning, 323
  5. 10.1017/S0272263121000024 · DOI · Paper page
  6. 10.1017/S0272263105050126 · DOI
  7. 10.1017/S0272263120000698 · DOI · Paper page
  8. 10.1017/S0272263100004022 · DOI · Paper page
  9. 10.1017/S027226310808073X · DOI · Paper page
  10. 10.1017/S0272263118000256 · DOI
  11. Rodríguez Silva, 2017, The role of cognitive individual differences and learning difficulty in instructed adults’ explicit and implicit knowledge of selected L2 grammar points: A study with Mexican learners of English
  12. Krashen, 1981, Individual differences and universals in language learning aptitude, 155
  13. 10.1111/lang.12319 · DOI
  14. Montero, 2018, Language aptitudes and L2 proficiency in Spanish noun gender assignment
  15. 10.1017/S136672891600002X · DOI
  16. 10.1111/lang.12335 · DOI
  17. Woltz, 2007, Available but unattended conceptual information in working memory: Temporarily active semantic content or persistent memory for prior operations?, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 155
  18. 10.1080/09658416.2015.1122026 · DOI
  19. 10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.12.016 · DOI
  20. 10.1017/S0272263118000141 · DOI
  21. 10.1017/S0272263120000704 · DOI
  22. Martens, P. , Nakatsukasa, K. , & Percival, H. (2016). Music training correlates with visual but not phonological foreign language learning skills. Proceedings of 14th International Conference on Music Perception and Cognition, 352–354.
  23. Andringa, 2019, Call for participation: SLA for all? Reproducing second language acquisition research in non-academic samples, Language Learning, 69, 5
  24. Jiménez, 2002, Attention and implicit learning, 43
  25. 10.1017/S0142716415000120 · DOI · Paper page
  26. 10.1017/S027226310001425X · DOI
  27. 10.1016/j.cortex.2013.02.012 · DOI
  28. 10.1207/S15326985EP3802_4 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Lee, 2018, The interactive effects of task complexity, task condition, and cognitive individual differences on L2 writing
  30. 10.1080/0144341042000262971 · DOI
  31. Wechsler, 2009, Wechsler Memory Scale-Fourth Edition (WMS-IV): Technical and interpretive manual
  32. 10.1017/S0272263115000509 · DOI · Paper page
  33. Shanks, 2005, Handbook of cognition, 202
  34. Rogers, 2016, EUROSLA Yearbook 16, 179
  35. 10.1016/j.jml.2006.07.008 · DOI
  36. 10.1080/01434632.2017.1410162 · DOI
  37. 10.1111/lang.12079 · DOI · Paper page
  38. 10.1126/science.2296719 · DOI · Paper page
  39. Witkin, 1981, Cognitive styles: Essence and origins. Field dependence and field independence
  40. 10.1016/S0022-5371(67)80149-X · DOI · Paper page
  41. 10.1177/0963721411429458 · DOI · Paper page
  42. Smeds, 2015, Blindness and second language acquisition: Studies of cognitive advantages in blind L1 and L2 speakers (Doctoral dissertation)
  43. 10.1038/nn.2260 · DOI
  44. 10.1111/lang.12368 · DOI
  45. 10.1075/itl.63.01dek · DOI
  46. 10.1006/ceps.1996.0023 · DOI
  47. 10.1177/0267658312461497 · DOI · Paper page
  48. 10.22599/jesla.24 · DOI · Paper page
  49. 10.1037/h0054651 · DOI · Paper page
  50. Reber, 1991, Implicit and explicit learning: Individual differences and IQ, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 888
  51. 10.1016/j.lindif.2016.06.023 · DOI
  52. 10.1111/lang.12011 · DOI
  53. Gebauer, 2007, Psychometric intelligence dissociates implicit and explicit learning, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 34
  54. 10.1017/S0272263117000432 · DOI
  55. 10.1075/lllt.35.04gra · DOI
  56. Moorman, 2017, Individual differences and linguistic factors in the development of mid vowels in L2 Spanish learners: A longitudinal study
  57. 10.1017/S0272263121000085 · DOI · Paper page
  58. Jiménez, 1996, Comparing direct and indirect measures of sequence learning, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 948
  59. Tabachnick, 2013, Using multivariate statistics
  60. Baddeley, 1974, Recent advances in learning and motivation, 8, 47
  61. 10.1111/lang.12063 · DOI
  62. 10.3758/BF03193587 · DOI
  63. Jiménez, 1999, Which attention is needed for implicit sequence learning?, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 236
  64. Mueller, 2017, An examination of the influence of age on L2 acquisition of English sound-symbolic patterns
  65. Mulligan, 1998, The role of attention during encoding in implicit and explicit memory, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 27
  66. 10.3758/BF03194917 · DOI
  67. 10.1037/0096-3445.117.3.319 · DOI
  68. 10.1111/lang.12018 · DOI
  69. 10.1017/S0142716418000528 · DOI
  70. 10.1017/S1366728918000895 · DOI
  71. 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.05.011 · DOI · Paper page
  72. 10.1037/10315-006 · DOI
  73. 10.1111/0023-8333.00137 · DOI
  74. 10.1075/lllt.35.09for · DOI
  75. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.06.019 · DOI · Paper page
  76. Rogers, 2023, Language aptitude theory and practice
  77. 10.1075/bpa.3.02ske · DOI · Paper page
  78. 10.1111/lang.12138 · DOI · Paper page
  79. 10.1111/lang.12241 · DOI
  80. 10.3758/s13423-012-0298-7 · DOI
  81. DeKeyser, 2003, The handbook of second language acquisition, 313
  82. 10.1111/lang.12010 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Iizuka, T., & DeKeyser, R.
Venue
Studies in Second Language Acquisition
Published
2023-01-09
Volume
46
Issue
1
Pages
28-50
ISSN
  • 0272-2631
  • 1470-1545
Cited by
16
References
4
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