The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Modality-Constrained Statistical Learning of Tactile, Visual, and Auditory Sequences.
Abstract
The authors investigated the extent to which touch, vision, and audition mediate the processing of statistical regularities within sequential input. Few researchers have conducted rigorous comparisons across sensory modalities; in particular, the sense of touch has been virtually ignored. The current data reveal not only commonalities but also modality constraints affecting statistical learning across the senses. To be specific, the authors found that the auditory modality displayed a quantitative learning advantage compared with vision and touch. In addition, they discovered qualitative learning biases among the senses: Primarily, audition afforded better learning for the final part of input sequences. These findings are discussed in terms of whether statistical learning is likely to consist of a single, unitary mechanism or multiple, modality-constrained ones.
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
The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory
Oldfield, R. C. (1971) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/0028-3932(71)90067-4 · Cited by 35,900
Visual statistical learning in infancy: evidence for a domain general learning mechanism
Kirkham, N. Z., Slemmer, J. A., & Johnson, S. P. (2002) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/s0010-0277(02)00004-5 · Cited by 1,072
Synthetic grammar learning: Implicit rule abstraction or explicit fragmentary knowledge?
Perruchet, P., & Pacteau, C. (1990) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.119.3.264 · Cited by 526
Freides, D. (1974) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0036331 · Cited by 362
Cited by
Implicit learning and statistical learning: one phenomenon, two approaches
Perruchet, P., & Pacton, S. (2006) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.03.006 · Cited by 830
Rapid Word Learning Under Uncertainty via Cross-Situational Statistics
Yu, C., & Smith, L. B. (2007) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01915.x · Cited by 655
Turk-Browne, N. B., Scholl, B. J., Chun, M. M., & Johnson, M. K. (2009) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/jocn.2009.21131 · Cited by 523
Saffran, J. R., & Kirkham, N. Z. (2018) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011805 · Cited by 426
Implicit statistical learning in language processing: Word predictability is the key☆
Conway, C. M., Bauernschmidt, A., Huang, S. S., & Pisoni, D. B. (2010) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2009.10.009 · Cited by 340
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Conway, C. M., & Christiansen, M. H.
- Venue
- Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition
- Published
- 2005
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 24-39
- ISSN
- 0278-7393 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1285
- OpenAlex
- W2013567601
- Cited by
- 538
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 15.41
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Modality-Constrained Statistical Learning of Tactile, Visual, and Auditory Sequences. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/0278-7393.31.1.24
- The paper
- Conway, C. M., & Christiansen, M. H. (2005). Modality-Constrained Statistical Learning of Tactile, Visual, and Auditory Sequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.31.1.24
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.