The DOI matches its Crossref record; 45 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 8 of the 34 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Incidental Language Learning: Listening (and Learning) Out of the Corner of Your Ear
Abstract
Two experiments investigated the performance of first-grade children and adults on an incidental language-learning task. Learning entailed word segmentation from continuous speech, an initial and crucial component of language acquisition. Subjects were briefly exposed to an unsegmented artificial language, presented auditorily, in which the only cues to word boundaries were the transitional probabilities between syllables. Subjects were not told that they were listening to a language, or even to listen at all; rather, they were engaged in a cover task of creating computer illustrations. Both adults and children learned the words of the language. Moreover, the children performed as well as the adults. These data suggest that a statistical learning mechanism (transitional probability computation) is able to operate incidentally and, surprisingly, as well in children as in adults.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
Two experiments showed that adults and 6- to 7-year-old children could learn words from a continuous artificial speech stream incidentally, while engaged in an unrelated drawing task. Children performed as well as adults, suggesting statistical word segmentation can operate without directed attention and may be age-invariant.
Key findings
- In Experiment 1, after one 21-min exposure, adults scored 21.1/36 (58.6%) and children scored 21.3/36 (59.2%), both significantly above chance (adults: t(11) = 2.38, p < .05; children: t(12) = 3.67, p < .01), with no significant adult-child difference, t(23) > 1, n.s.
- In Experiment 2, after doubled exposure across two sessions, adults scored 26.3/36 (73.1%) and children scored 24.6/36 (68.3%), both significantly above chance (adults: t(11) = 6.33, p < .01; children: t(10) = 5.56, p < .01), again with no significant adult-child difference, t(21) > 1, n.s.
- Doubling exposure improved performance significantly, F(1, 46) = 12.5, p < .01, with no main effect of age, F(1, 46) = 0.162, n.s., and no interaction between exposure length and age, F(1, 46) = 0.94, n.s.
- Subjects learned the words despite not being told the tape was a language or that they would be tested; the only cues to word boundaries were transitional probabilities between syllables, higher within words (.31–1.0) than across word boundaries (.1–.2).
Methods
- Participants were monolingual English speakers: Experiment 1 had 12 University of Rochester undergraduates and 13 children aged 6–7; Experiment 2 had 12 paid adult college students and 11 children aged 6–7 from University of Rochester summer camps.
- Exposure used a 21-min synthesized speech stream containing 300 tokens of each of six trisyllabic nonsense words in random order, with no pauses or acoustic/prosodic cues to word boundaries; learning was tested with 36 two-alternative forced-choice trials pairing words against nonword foils.
- The cover task had subjects create computer illustrations with Kid Pix 2 while the tape played; Experiment 2 repeated the 21-min exposure on a second day before testing.
Limitations
- The paper states the linguistic input was more concentrated than natural learning environments and was impoverished, lacking utterance boundaries and acoustic/prosodic cues that probabilistically correlate with word boundaries; the study targeted incidental learning of statistical information rather than a full model of natural word-boundary acquisition.
- The paper states it was not trying to assess whether learning occurred without conscious awareness; subjects varied in reported awareness, and these differences did not correlate with performance.
- The paper states further research is needed to see whether child superiority in later natural-language stages appears in more complex statistical learning tasks or involves different, nonstatistical mechanisms; evident from the text, the samples were small and limited to 6- and 7-year-olds using an artificial language, so generalization to infants and natural language acquisition is not established.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
11 Own interpretation · 8 Own method · 5 Supported so far · 4 No full text of the sources · 4 Own result · 3 Sources not found · 2 Partly supported · 2 Not checked yet · 2 No basis given · 1 Not supported · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“This absence of age differences is in line with the literature on age of learning in natural language acquisition.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Johnson & Newport, 1989 source
- Partly supportedcites Newport, 1990 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In “Evidence of Maturational Constraints in Second Language Learning,” the paper reports no significant relationship between age of arrival and performance among learners arriving at ages 17–39, which could support an absence of age differences among adults. But it reports strong age-of-acquisition effects through childhood in both first and second language learning. The citing sentence does not specify the age range or language feature for which differences were absent. (LLM, conf=0.83)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“basic word order is acquired equivalently by both child and adult learners”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Johnson & Newport, 1989 source
- Supportedcites Newport, 1990 source
In “Evidence of Maturational Constraints in First Language Learning,” Figure 1a is described as showing virtually perfect ASL basic-word-order scores across groups differing in age of first exposure. The second-language section likewise reports very similar word-order control for native and late learners of English. (LLM, conf=0.92)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Across a language sample, sounds that co-occur within words tend to be more highly correlated with one another than sound pairs spanning word boundaries.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Aslin et al., 1996
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Partly supportedcites Brent & Cartwright, 1996 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 4.1 (page unavailable) describes placing word boundaries at troughs in transitional probabilities between syllables, and Section 5 says frequent adjacent subsequences are more likely to be treated as one word. These passages support the general idea that co-occurrence helps distinguish within-word sequences from boundary-spanning ones, but they do not report a comparison showing that sound pairs within words are, across a language sample, more highly correlated than pairs spanning boundaries. (LLM, conf=0.78)
- Not matchedcites Hayes & Clark, 1970
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“infants may be able to exploit statistical cues to word boundaries”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Aslin, Woodward, LaMendola, & Bever, 1996
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Supportedcites Brent & Cartwright, 1996 source
The Behavioral experiments section (p. unavailable) reports that 9-month-olds responded to a word followed by a variety of other words, as expected if they used distributional regularity to identify word boundaries. This supports the claim’s cautious wording that infants may exploit statistical cues. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Saffran, Newport, & Aslin, 1996 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“In later stages, learners who began as children surpass those who began as adults”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Johnson & Newport, 1989 source
- Not matchedcites Krashen, Long, & Scarcella, 1982
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Supportedcites Newport, 1990 source
The Summary states that learners who begin in childhood reach more systematic levels of asymptotic language performance than those who begin in adulthood. This supports the claim about their relative performance in later stages; no page number is provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Critical-period effects (i.e., superiority of child learners over adults) emerge later in learning, particularly for more complex syntactic and morphological structures”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Johnson & Newport, 1989 source
- Not matchedcites Krashen et al., 1982
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Supportedcites Newport, 1990 source
In “Evidence of Maturational Constraints in Second Language Learning” (page unavailable), Newport contrasts adults’ advantage during the first year with differences in ultimately achieved competence, and reports age-related differences across most tested aspects of English morphology and syntax. The “What Changes Over Maturation” section (page unavailable) explains why children may have an advantage for structures requiring componential analysis. (LLM, conf=0.89)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These differences in reported awareness did not correlate with performance.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There was no main effect of age, F(1, 46) = 0.162, n.s.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“no interaction between length of exposure and age, F(1, 46) = 0.94, n.s.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This finding suggests that the computation of the kinds of lowlevel contingencies found in some aspects of linguistic input is achieved with equal ease by learners who differ vastly on other dimensions of cognitive ability.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Word segmentation from continuous speech is an initial and crucial component of language acquisition, and the artificial-language segmentation task validly models that component.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 13
- Probably not a substantial claim. 13
At least one cited source doesn’t support this claim or points to a different paper, and none confirmed it — see the verdicts below.
In the paper
“language acquisition does not favor adults over children. Rather, the initial stages of language acquisition are characterized by age invariance.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Johnson & Newport, 1989 source
- Not matchedcites Krashen, Long, & Scarcella, 1982
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Disputedcites Newport, 1990 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In “What Changes Over Maturation” (page unavailable), Newport says that children and adults make different types of errors in the early stages of learning ASL, contrary to the claim of age invariance. The paper also predicts a child advantage for componential analysis and an adult advantage for whole-word learning, rather than a uniform pattern across language acquisition. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“recent computational models of language acquisition suggest that at least some pertinent language-learning mechanisms may induce structure from the input using statistical methods similar to those suggested by incidental-learning research”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Brent & Cartwright, 1996 source
In “7. Three hypotheses” and “EXPERIMENT 1” (pages unavailable), the paper describes computer simulations that segment child-directed speech into words using distributional regularity, starting with no known words. “8.1. Algorithm” describes a measure based on the relative frequencies of candidate words. This supports the cited, hedged claim that a computational language-acquisition model can derive structure from input using statistical methods; the comparison to incidental-learning research is the citing authors’ framing. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Not matchedcites Christiansen, 1994
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Elman, 1990 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the children performed as well as the adults in both experiments.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Some subjects reported that they were aware of learning during the exposure period, whereas others actively tuned out the speech stream and were unaware of learning anything at all.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Subjects were told that they were participating in an experiment investigating the influence of auditory stimuli on creativity, and that they had approximately 20 min to work on an illustration using Kid Pix 2©, a coloring program designed for children, while a tape was playing in the background.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Subjects were not told that the sounds were actually words from a nonsense language.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the transitional probability from one sound to the next will generally be highest when the two sounds follow one another word-internally; transitional probabilities spanning word boundaries will tend to be relatively low.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Subjects were not told that they were listening to a language, or even to listen at all; rather, they were engaged in a cover task of creating computer illustrations.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Information about event frequency is acquired by humans across a broad range of natural and experimental situations, and is maintained even when there is no reason to remember the events in question”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Hasher, Zacks, Rose, & Sanft, 1987 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Six nonword foils were created to test subjects' learning, using syllables from the language in sequences that never occurred during the exposure period, even across word boundaries”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the linguistic input was in the background and not part of the primary task.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“no pauses or any other acoustic or prosodic cues to word boundaries were present.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The fact that children, in particular, learned under these conditions suggests that incidental learning is a robust phenomenon that may play a role in natural language acquisition.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Word segmentation from continuous speech is an initial and crucial component of language acquisition, and the artificial-language segmentation task validly models that component.
- Rests on an assumption: During exposure, subjects' attention was not directed to the speech stream or to the word segmentation task.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“After four practice trials using word-nonword pairs from English to ensure that subjects understood the response procedure, the 36 test trials were presented.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These results also suggest that the computation of transitional probabilities can proceed incidentally, and therefore might underlie aspects of both natural language acquisition and learning in other domains.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Word segmentation from continuous speech is an initial and crucial component of language acquisition, and the artificial-language segmentation task validly models that component.
- Rests on an assumption: During exposure, subjects' attention was not directed to the speech stream or to the word segmentation task.
In the paper
“It has been suggested that the frequency of events present in the environment is a fundamental type of information that is encoded in memory incidentally”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Hasher & Zacks, 1984
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“implicit-learning phenomena are based on learning mechanisms that capitalize on the statistical structure of the input”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Cleeremans, 1993
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Perruchet & Pacteau, 1990 source
- Not matchedcites Reber, 1993
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The process of acquiring language is thus incidental in the sense that the child's primary task is presumably understanding, rather than acquiring, language”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Chomsky, 1975
- Not matchedcites Krashen, 1985
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Rather than including all the cues necessary for a model of the natural acquisition of word boundaries, the experimental situation specifically targeted the incidental learning of statistical information.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Word segmentation from continuous speech is an initial and crucial component of language acquisition, and the artificial-language segmentation task validly models that component.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the linguistic input presented a more concentrated learning exposure than would be available to a learner in a more natural learning environment.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: Word segmentation from continuous speech is an initial and crucial component of language acquisition, and the artificial-language segmentation task validly models that component.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Such learning abilities are a critical aspect of the child's genetic endowment, and as such may also be a crucial component of the human language-learning instinct.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Word segmentation from continuous speech is an initial and crucial component of language acquisition, and the artificial-language segmentation task validly models that component.
In the paper
“the input was quite impoverished, containing neither utterance boundaries nor the acoustic and prosodic cues that are probabilistically correlated with word boundaries in some languages”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Saffran et al., 1996 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Word segmentation from continuous speech is an initial and crucial component of language acquisition, and the artificial-language segmentation task validly models that component.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The present study also provided a learning situation that is perhaps even more challenging than the child's actual language environment.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Word segmentation from continuous speech is an initial and crucial component of language acquisition, and the artificial-language segmentation task validly models that component.
The paper relies on this without support.
Little research has examined the characteristics of incidental learning pertinent to children's language acquisition.
“However, little research has examined the characteristics of incidental learning pertinent to the process of children's language acquisition.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Word segmentation from continuous speech is an initial and crucial component of language acquisition, and the artificial-language segmentation task validly models that component.
“Learning entailed word segmentation from continuous speech, an initial and crucial component of language acquisition.”
The paper relies on this without support.
During exposure, subjects' attention was not directed to the speech stream or to the word segmentation task.
“Any learning that occurred was thus doubly incidental, in that attention was directed neither to the word segmentation task nor to the acoustic stimuli forming the words.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Before children can begin to acquire syntax, they must discover the words of their language.
“Before children can begin to acquire syntax, they must discover the words of their language”
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?
In the citing paper
“A second set of studies demonstrated that first-grade children as well as adults were able to succeed on this task, even when the speech stream was presented incidentally while subjects were attending to another task (Saffran et al., 1997).”
From Statistical learning of tone sequences by human infants and adults (1999) · cites this paper as Saffran et al., 1997
Statistics recomputed
Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.
- ConsistentF(1, 46) = 0.162reported n.s. · recomputed p = .689
“F(1, 46) = 0.162, n.s.”
- ConsistentF(1, 46) = 0.94reported n.s. · recomputed p = .337
“F(1, 46) = 0.94, n.s.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Results and Discussion
“The difference between adults' and children's performance was not significant, t(23) > 1, n.s.”
§ Results and Discussion
“The mean score for the adults was 21.1 out of a possible 36 (58.6%), where chance equals 18. A single-sample t test (two-tailed) showed that performance was significantly better than chance, t(11) = 2.38, p < .05. The mean score for the children was 21.3 (59.2%), which was also significantly better than chance, t(12) = 3.67, p < .01.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Results and Discussion
“no interaction between length of exposure and age, F(1, 46) = 0.94, n.s.”
§ Method
“Twelve adult college students from the University of Rochester campus were recruited as subjects, and paid $10 for their participation. Eleven 6- and 7-year-old children were recruited from summer camps held at the University of Rochester.”
Citations
Cites
ASPECTS OF THE THEORY OF SYNTAX
Chomsky, N. (1964) · doi:10.21236/ad0616323 · Cited by 13,587
Elman, J. L. (1990) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1402_1 · Cited by 11,212
(1985) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 3,896
The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications
Gregg, K. R., & Krashen, S. D. (1986) · TESOL Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3586393 · Cited by 3,043
Werker, J. F., & Tees, R. C. (1984) · Infant Behavior and Development · doi:10.1016/s0163-6383(84)80022-3 · Cited by 2,801 · cited 1×
“…of distributional analyses of the input, including the vowel space (Kuhl, Williams, Lacerda, Stevens, & Lindblom, 1992), consonant categories (Werker & Tees, 1984), phonotactic rules (Jusczyk, Friederici, Wessels, Svenkerud, & Jusczyk, 1993), phonological regularities (Jusczyk, Cutler, &…”
Johnson, J. S., & Newport, E. L. (1989) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/0010-0285(89)90003-0 · Cited by 2,724
Self-citationBeyond modularity: a developmental perspective on cognitive science
Karmiloff‐Smith, A. (1993) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.30-5872 · Cited by 2,594
Bloom, L. M. (1974) · Language · doi:10.2307/412449 · Cited by 2,103
Linguistic experience alters phonetic perception in infants by 6 months of age
Kuhl, P. K., Williams, K. A., Lacerda, F., Stevens, K. N., & Lindblom, B. (1992) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1736364 · Cited by 2,086
Karmiloff‐Smith, A. (1992) · The MIT Press eBooks · doi:10.7551/mitpress/1579.001.0001 · Cited by 2,078
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- Aslin R.N., 1996, Signal to syntax, 117
- Christiansen M.H. (1994). Infinite languages, finite minds: Connectionism, learning and linguistic structure. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland.
- Cleeremans A., 1995, Backpropagation: Theory, architectures, and applications, 273
- Cole R., 1980, A model of speech perception
- Ellis N.C., 1994, Implicit and explicit learning of languages
- Mintz T.H., 1995, Proceedings of NELS 25, 2, 43
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Ziegler, J. C., & Goswami, U. (2005) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.131.1.3 · Cited by 2,871
“Whereas the latter appears to rely on “chunking” of the speech stream according to transitional and phonotactic probabilities (Saffran, 2001; Saffran et al., 1997), the former may require the inspection of memory traces for discrete representations and the projection of generalizations that go beyond the surface forms…”
BackgroundToward a second-person neuroscience
Schilbach, L., Timmermans, B., Reddy, V., Costall, A., Bente, G., Schlicht, T., & Vogeley, K. (2013) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x12000660 · Cited by 1,510
Statistical learning of tone sequences by human infants and adults
Saffran, J. R., Johnson, E. K., Aslin, R. N., & Newport, E. L. (1999) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/s0010-0277(98)00075-4 · Cited by 1,429
“One type of cue that is likely to be particularly useful in word segmentation is statistical information derived from the distribution of patterns of sounds (Hayes and Clark, 1970; Goodsitt et al., 1993; Christophe et al., 1994; Brent and Cartwright, 1996; Saffran et al., 1996a; Saffran et al., 1996b; Saffran et al.,…”
BackgroundSelf-citationInfant sensitivity to distributional information can affect phonetic discrimination
Maye, J., Werker, J. F., & Gerken, L. (2002) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/s0010-0277(01)00157-3 · Cited by 1,364
Computation of conditional probability statistics by 8-month-old infants
Aslin, R. N., Saffran, J. R., & Newport, E. L. (1998) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00063 · Cited by 1,189
“Explaining the acquisition of these higher levels of language structure therefore requires either a quite different type of mechanism or even more complex distributional analyses and richer representations over which the analyses are performed (Mintz, Newport, & Bever, 1995; Saffran, 1997).”
BackgroundSelf-citationEvent structure in perception and conception.
Zacks, J. M., & Tversky, B. (2001) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.127.1.3 · Cited by 1,208
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
“Nevertheless, adults are remarkably facile at such tasks (see Stadler & Frensch, 1998 for review), and evidence is beginning to emerge that children also can learn intricate stimulus sequences without explicit knowledge of the statistical structure of the input (Meulemans, Van der Linden, & Perruchet, 1998), and even…”
Variability and Detection of Invariant Structure
Gómez, R. L. (2002) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00476 · Cited by 885
“It occurs after as little as 2 min of exposure (Saffran, Aslin, & Newport, 1996) and when learners are not explicitly focused on or aware of statistical structure in the training stimuli (Saffran, Newport, Aslin, Tunick, & Barrueco, 1997; see also Gómez, 1997); it also appears to be age invariant, occurring as readily…”
BackgroundThe Automaticity of Visual Statistical Learning.
Turk‐Browne, N. B., Junge, J. A., & Scholl, B. J. (2005) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.134.4.552 · Cited by 839
“First, both children and adults are able to learn joint probabilities in “background” auditory streams even while performing a primary visual task (Saffran et al., 1997).”
BackgroundLearning at a distance I. Statistical learning of non-adjacent dependencies
Newport, E. L., & Aslin, R. Ν. (2003) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0010-0285(03)00128-2 · Cited by 835
Self-citationImplicit and Explicit Learning
DEKEYSER, R. M. (2003) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9780470756492.ch11 · Cited by 842
Rosas, R., Nussbaum, M., Cumsille, P., Marianov, V., Correa, M., Flores, P., Grau, V., Lagos, F., López, X., López, V., et al. (2003) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/s0360-1315(02)00099-4 · Cited by 699
Implicit learning: news from the front
Axel Cleeremans, B., Destrebecqz, A., & Boyer, M. (1998) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/s1364-6613(98)01232-7 · Cited by 690
Perceiving, remembering, and communicating structure in events.
Zacks, J. M., Tversky, B., & Iyer, G. (2001) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.130.1.29 · Cited by 640
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
“Thus, statistical learning operated without participants’ awareness of the underlying structure between glyphs during the jiggle task (see also TurkBrowne et al., 2005; Saffran et al., 1997).”
Statistical learning of higher-order temporal structure from visual shape sequences.
Fiser, J., & Aslin, R. (2002) · Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037//0278-7393.28.3.458 · Cited by 641
“For example, change-blindness tasks (Simons & Levin, 1997), the integration of information across saccadic eye movements (Henderson, 1997; Irwin, 1996), and memory of distractor items in a visual search task (Horowitz & Wolfe, 1998) all suggest minimal access to temporal correlations.”
BackgroundSelf-citationThe cognitive and neural architecture of sequence representation.
Keele, S. W., Ivry, R. B., Mayr, U., Hazeltine, E., & Heuer, H. (2003) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.110.2.316 · Cited by 515
“It could be argued that in the Schmidtke and Heuer (1997) study, unidimensional learning persists in the presence of a random secondary task because the visual sequence is so short, repeating every six events.”
BackgroundStatistical learning of higher-order temporal structure from visual shape sequences.
Fiser, J., & Aslin, R. Ν. (2002) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/0278-7393.28.3.458 · Cited by 505
Self-citationStatistical Learning in Children With Specific Language Impairment
Evans, J., Saffran, J. R., & Robe-Torres, K. (2009) · Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research · doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2009/07-0189 · Cited by 529
Self-citationImplicit learning of tonality: A self-organizing approach.
Tillmann, B., Bharucha, J. J., & Bigand, E. (2000) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.107.4.885 · Cited by 449
Storkel, H. L. (2001) · Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research · doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2001/103 · Cited by 443
Hauser, M. D., Newport, E. L., & Aslin, R. N. (2001) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/s0010-0277(00)00132-3 · Cited by 419
“…of other oscine species produce the notes and syllables of their songs in a ®xed or stereotyped sequence, with order playing a crucial role in species, dialect, and individual identity (Hailman & Ficken, 1987; Hailman, Ficken, & Ficken, 1985, 1987; Immelman, 1969; Marler, 1977, 2000; Price, 1979).”
BackgroundSelf-citationSymbol Interdependency in Symbolic and Embodied Cognition
Louwerse, M. M. (2011) · Topics in Cognitive Science · doi:10.1111/j.1756-8765.2010.01106.x · Cited by 399
Lexical competition and the acquisition of novel words
Gaskell, M. G., & Dumay, N. (2003) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/s0010-0277(03)00070-2 · Cited by 399
Constraints on Statistical Language Learning
Saffran, J. R. (2002) · Journal of Memory and Language · doi:10.1006/jmla.2001.2839 · Cited by 415
“Participants were exposed to either Language P or Language N in an incidental learning paradigm used previously by Saffran et al. (1997) and Saffran (2001), to minimize the effects of strategic learning processes.”
Self-citationPARSER: A Model for Word Segmentation
Perruchet, P., & Vinter, A. (1998) · Journal of Memory and Language · doi:10.1006/jmla.1998.2576 · Cited by 389
“These observations led us to hypothesize that the reduced amount of attention paid to the language was sufficient to account for the moderate level of performance reported in Saffran et al. (1997).”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialLearning Words through Overhearing
Akhtar, N., Jipson, J. L., & Callanan, M. A. (2001) · Child Development · doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00287 · Cited by 330
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 319
Statistical learning research: A critical review and possible new directions.
Frost, R., Armstrong, B. C., & Christiansen, M. H. (2019) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000210 · Cited by 343
“For example, in contrast to Saffran et al. (1997); Toro, Sinnett, and Soto-Faraco (2005) found that speech segmentation in the ASL task is compromised without attention allocation.”
BackgroundResultStatistical Learning and Language: An Individual Differences Study
Misyak, J. B., & Christiansen, M. H. (2011) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00626.x · Cited by 341
Hippocampus activity differentiates good from poor learners of a novel lexicon
Breitenstein, C., Jansen, A., Deppe, M., Förster, A., Sommer, J. B., Wolbers, T., & Knecht, S. (2005) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.12.019 · Cited by 307
Distant Melodies: Statistical Learning of Nonadjacent Dependencies in Tone Sequences.
Creel, S. C., Newport, E. L., & Aslin, R. Ν. (2004) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/0278-7393.30.5.1119 · Cited by 315
“... a patterned sequence of elements? Recent studies of a mechanism we have called statistical learning have shown that adults, young children, and infants are capable of computing transitional probabilities among adjacent syllables in rapidly presented streams of speech and of using these statistics to group syllable…”
BackgroundSelf-citationSpeech segmentation by statistical learning depends on attention.
Toro, J. M., Sinnett, S., & Soto-Faraco, S. (2005) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2005.01.006 · Cited by 311
“Even though it is not necessary that the infant's attention is solely devoted to any linguistic input in the environment (Saffran et al., 1997), the speech signal seems to have a privileged status for infants as young as 2.5 months old (Vouloumanos & Werker, 2004).”
BackgroundInfluentialVisual statistical learning in the newborn infant
Bulf, H., Johnson, S. P., & Valenza, E. (2011) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2011.06.010 · Cited by 281
Linguistic Constraints on Statistical Computations
Bonatti, L., Peña, M., Nespor, M., & Mehler, J. (2005) · Psychology Science · doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01556.x · Cited by 193
Erickson, L. C., & Thiessen, E. D. (2015) · Developmental Review · doi:10.1016/j.dr.2015.05.002 · Cited by 307
The Oxford Handbook of Polysynthesis
Fortescue, M., Mithun, M., & Evans, N. (2017) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199683208.001.0001 · Cited by 273
The Use of Predictive Dependencies in Language Learning
Saffran, J. R. (2001) · Journal of Memory and Language · doi:10.1006/jmla.2000.2759 · Cited by 286
“…languages containing natural language-like properties serve as a tool to investigate basic processes in language acquisition (e.g., Braine, 1971; Braine et al., 1990; Moeser & Bregman, 1972; Morgan et al., 1987, 1989; Morgan & Newport, 1981; Saffran et al., 1996, 1997; Valian & Coulson, 1988).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citationTesting assumptions of statistical learning: Is it long-term and implicit?
Kim, R. S., Seitz, A. R., Feenstra, H., & Shams, L. B. (2009) · Neuroscience Letters · doi:10.1016/j.neulet.2009.06.030 · Cited by 256
“It has been suggested that this type of learning may contribute to language learning [19,21], acquisition of scene and object representations [11], and the hierarchical coding of objects (i.”
Nozari, N., Dell, G. S., & Schwartz, M. F. (2011) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2011.05.001 · Cited by 261
Implicit and explicit contributions to statistical learning
Batterink, L. J., Reber, P., Neville, H., & Paller, K. A. (2015) · Journal of Memory and Language · doi:10.1016/j.jml.2015.04.004 · Cited by 215
“…nature (either transitional probabilities, which were higher within words than across word boundaries, or frequency of cooccurrence, which were higher for the three syllable sequences within words than across words; cf. Saffran et al., 1996b; Saffran et al., 1997; Aslin, Saffran & Newport, 1998).”
InfluentialThe development of abstract syntax: Evidence from structural priming and the lexical boost
Rowland, C. F., Chang, F., Ambridge, B., Pine, J. M., & Lieven, E. (2012) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2012.06.008 · Cited by 251
Procedural Learning in Adolescents With and Without Specific Language Impairment
Tomblin, J., Mainela-Arnold, E., & Zhang, X.-Y. (2007) · Language Learning and Development · doi:10.1080/15475440701377477 · Cited by 284
Dynamic Self‐Organization and Early Lexical Development in Children
Li, P., Zhao, X., & Whinney, B. M. (2007) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1080/15326900701399905 · Cited by 233
Measuring individual differences in statistical learning: Current pitfalls and possible solutions
Siegelman, N., Bogaerts, L., & Frost, R. (2016) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-016-0719-z · Cited by 219
Stress changes the representational landscape: evidence from word segmentation.
Curtin, S., Mintz, T. H., & Christiansen, M. H. (2005) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2004.08.005 · Cited by 217
Statistical computations over a speech stream in a rodent
Toro, J. M., & Trobalón, J. B. (2005) · Perception & Psychophysics · doi:10.3758/bf03193539 · Cited by 227
Segmenting dynamic human action via statistical structure
Baldwin, D. A., Andersson, A., Saffran, J. R., & Meyer, M. A. (2007) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2007.07.005 · Cited by 208
“Finally, for much the same reason, Avrahami and Kareev did not employ the statistical-learning techniques (e.g., Hunt & Aslin, 2001; Saffran et al., 1997) that have become standard in recent years.”
MethodSelf-citationRamus, F., & Ahissar, M. (2012) · Cognitive Neuropsychology · doi:10.1080/02643294.2012.677420 · Cited by 224
“The ability to automatically detect regularities has been shown at very young ages for the case of word segmentation, based on transitional probabilities between syllables, (eg, Saffran, Newport, Aslin, Tunick, & Barrueco, 1997 ).”
The extraction and integration framework: A two-process account of statistical learning
Thiessen, E. D., Kronstein, A. T., & Hufnagle, D. G. (2013) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0030801 · Cited by 202
Implicit learning of ignored visual context
Jiang, Y. V., & Leung, A. W. (2005) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/bf03196353 · Cited by 208
Learning at a distance II. Statistical learning of non-adjacent dependencies in a non-human primate
Newport, E. L., HAUSER, M. D., Spaepen, G. M., & Aslin, R. Ν. (2004) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2003.12.002 · Cited by 197
Self-citationArtificial language learning and feature-based generalization
FINLEY, S. C., & Badecker, W. (2009) · Journal of Memory and Language · doi:10.1016/j.jml.2009.05.002 · Cited by 192
Predictive uncertainty in auditory sequence processing
Hansen, N. C., & Pearce, M. T. (2014) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01052 · Cited by 188
Impaired Statistical Learning in Developmental Dyslexia
Gabay, Y., Thiessen, E. D., & Holt, L. L. (2015) · Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research · doi:10.1044/2015_jslhr-l-14-0324 · Cited by 189
“However, there is a great debate about if implicit learning tasks, including SL tasks (Saffran et al., 1997), can actually occur without consciousness (Shanks, 2003).”
Production benefits of childhood overhearing
Knightly, L. M., Jun, S., Oh, J. S., & Au, T. K.-F. (2003) · The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · doi:10.1121/1.1577560 · Cited by 187
The Role of Embodied Intention in Early Lexical Acquisition
Chen, Y., Ballard, D., & Aslin, R. (2005) · Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1207/s15516709cog0000_40 · Cited by 182
“Nonetheless, previous language learning studies have shown similar findings for adults exposed to an artificial language (Saffran, Newport, et al., 1996), and for children ( Saffran, Newport, Aslin, Tunick, & Barrueco, 1997 ) or even infants exposed to the same types of language materials (Saffran, Aslin, et al., 1996…”
ResultSelf-citationWhat to expect where and when: how statistical learning drives visual selection
Theeuwes, J., Bogaerts, L., & van Moorselaar, D. (2022) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2022.06.001 · Cited by 192
A computational model of event segmentation from perceptual prediction
Reynolds, J. R., Zacks, J. M., & Braver, T. S. (2007) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1080/15326900701399913 · Cited by 172
A Statistical Basis for Speech Sound Discrimination
Anderson, J. L., Morgan, J. L., & White, K. S. (2003) · Language and Speech · doi:10.1177/00238309030460020601 · Cited by 180
An interaction between prosody and statistics in the segmentation of fluent speech.
Shukla, M., Nespor, M., & Mehler, J. (2007) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2006.04.002 · Cited by 196
Language adaptation and learning: Getting explicit about implicit learning
Chang, F., Janciauskas, M., & Fitz, H. (2012) · Language and Linguistics Compass · doi:10.1002/lnc3.337 · Cited by 190
Spaulding, T. J., Plante, E., & Vance, R. (2008) · Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research · doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2008/002 · Cited by 180
Online neural monitoring of statistical learning
Batterink, L. J., & Paller, K. A. (2017) · Cortex; a journal devoted to the study of the nervous system and behavior · doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2017.02.004 · Cited by 155
“Since this seminal study, a large literature has demonstrated that statistical learning operates across ages and sensory modalities (e.g., Bulf, Johnson, & Valenza, 2011; Saffran et al., 1997; Saffran et al., 1999; Fiser & Aslin, 2001; Turk-Browne, Junge, and Scholl, 2005; Conway & Christiansen, 2005), and that it con…”
BackgroundHunt, R. H., & Aslin, R. (2001) · Journal of experimental psychology. General · doi:10.1037//0096-3445.130.4.658 · Cited by 216
“Are there simpler computational mechanisms than those described here that could enable learners to show the same pattern of RTs in these experiments? Perruchet and Vinter (1998) argued that adult, child, and infant performance in the studies of Saffran and colleagues (Saffran, Aslin, & Newport, 1996; Saffran, Newport,…”
BackgroundInfluentialSelf-citationRole of Attention and Perceptual Grouping in Visual Statistical Learning
Baker, C. I., Olson, C. R., & Behrmann, M. (2004) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00702.x · Cited by 173
Arciuli, J., & Simpson, I. C. (2010) · Developmental Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2009.00937.x · Cited by 187
English only? Monolinguals in linguistically diverse contexts have an edge in language learning
Bice, K., & Kroll, J. F. (2019) · Brain and Language · doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2019.104644 · Cited by 176
Storkel, H. L., & Morrisette, M. L. (2002) · Language Speech and Hearing Services in Schools · doi:10.1044/0161-1461(2002/003 · Cited by 160
Time course and functional neuroanatomy of speech segmentation in adults
Toni Cunillera, B., Càmara, E., Toro, J. M., Marco‐Pallarés, J., Sebastián‐Gallés, N., Ortiz, H., Pujol, J., & Rodríguez‐Fornells, A. (2009) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.06.069 · Cited by 164
White, E. J., Hutka, S. A., Williams, L. J., & Moreno, S. (2013) · Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnsys.2013.00090 · Cited by 187
Hunt, R. H., & Aslin, R. Ν. (2001) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.130.4.658 · Cited by 158
Self-citationStatistical Learning of Adjacent and Non-Adjacent Dependencies among Non-Linguistic Sounds
Gebhart, A. L., Newport, E., & Aslin, R. (2009) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/pbr.16.3.486 · Cited by 157
Self-citationCortical encoding of melodic expectations in human temporal cortex
Liberto, G. M. D., Pelofi, C., Bianco, R., Patel, P., Mehta, A. D., Herrero, J. L., Alain De Cheveigné, A., Shamma, S., & Mesgarani, N. (2020) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.51784 · Cited by 161
Linguistic entrenchment: prior knowledge impacts statistical learning performance
Siegelman, N., Bogaerts, L., Elazar, A., Arciuli, J., & Frost, R. (2018) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2018.04.011 · Cited by 128
Understanding the Neural Bases of Implicit and Statistical Learning
Batterink, L. J., Paller, K. A., & Reber, P. (2019) · Topics in Cognitive Science · doi:10.1111/tops.12420 · Cited by 101
Speciale, G., Ellis, N. C., & Bywater, T. J. (2004) · Applied Psycholinguistics · doi:10.1017/s0142716404001146 · Cited by 151
Emberson, L. L., Conway, C. M., & Christiansen, M. H. (2010) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1080/17470218.2010.538972 · Cited by 142
Easterbrooks, S. R., Lederberg, A. R., Miller, E. M., Bergeron, J. P., & Connor, C. M. (2008) · The Volta Review · doi:10.17955/tvr.108.2.608 · Cited by 144
The multi-component nature of statistical learning
Arciuli, J. (2016) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2016.0058 · Cited by 140
A Theory of Tonal Hierarchies in Music
Krumhansl, C. L., & Cuddy, L. L. (2010) · Springer handbook of auditory research · doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-6114-3_3 · Cited by 146
Raviv, L., & Arnon, I. (2017) · Developmental Science · doi:10.1111/desc.12593 · Cited by 149
“These results mirror the findings of Arciuli and Simpson (2011), who reported an improvement with age in the visual domain for similar ages, and are also in line with Saffran et al. (1997), who reported age- invariance in the auditory domain.”
BackgroundResultInfluentialCross-situational statistical word learning in young children
Suanda, S. H., Mugwanya, N., & Namy, L. L. (2014) · Journal of Experimental Child Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2014.06.003 · Cited by 133
“This finding is in accord with a number of statistical language learning studies in other aspects of language acquisition, such as speech segmentation (Saffran et al., 1997) and sequence learning (Meulemans, Van der Linden, & Perruchet, 1998), that also find similarities between adults' and children's statistical lear…”
ResultThe Languages of the Daly River Region (Northern Australia)
Nordlinger, R. (2017) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199683208.013.44 · Cited by 134
Formal and Cognitive Restrictions on Vowel Harmony
Finley, S. (2008) · doi:10.7282/t3k64h05 · Cited by 133
Polysynthesis in Northern Australia
Evans, N. (2017) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199683208.013.19 · Cited by 133
Temporal Attention as a Scaffold for Language Development
de Diego‐Balaguer, R., Martinez‐Alvarez, A., & Pons, F. (2016) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00044 · Cited by 137
Robinson, P. (2005) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263105050126 · Cited by 129
Tillmann, B., & McAdams, S. E. (2004) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/0278-7393.30.5.1131 · Cited by 131
“This learning process thus does not apply only to syllables (Saffran, Newport, et al., 1996; Saffran et al., 1997) and pure tones (Saffran et al., 1999), but also to more complex, nonlinguistic material: musical timbres.”
BackgroundBakker, I., Takashima, A., van Hell, J. G., Janzen, G., & McQueen, J. M. (2015) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.10.020 · Cited by 138
Christiansen, M. H., Conway, C. M., & Onnis, L. (2011) · Language and Cognitive Processes · doi:10.1080/01690965.2011.606666 · Cited by 123
Siegelman, N., Bogaerts, L., Kronenfeld, O., & Frost, R. (2017) · Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1111/cogs.12556 · Cited by 114
“We refer here to the parallel design used extensively with adult populations (e.g., Saffran et al., 1997). other elements.”
Choi, D., Batterink, L. J., Black, A. K., Paller, K. A., & Werker, J. F. (2020) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797620933237 · Cited by 117
Statistical Learning Across Development: Flexible Yet Constrained
Slone, L. K., Vlach, H. A., & Johnson, S. P. (2013) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00598 · Cited by 130
TRACX: A recognition-based connectionist framework for sequence segmentation and chunk extraction.
French, R. M., Addyman, C., & Denis Mareschal, B. (2011) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/a0025255 · Cited by 120
Majerus, S., der Linden, M. V., Mulder, L., Meulemans, T., & Peters, F. (2004) · Journal of Memory and Language · doi:10.1016/j.jml.2004.05.002 · Cited by 123
Do beez buzz? Rule-based and frequency-based knowledge in learning to spell plural -s.
Kemp, N., & Bryant, P. (2003) · Child Development · doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00521 · Cited by 144
The Acquisition of Murrinhpatha (Northern Australia)
Forshaw, W., Davidson, L., Kelly, B. F., Nordlinger, R., Wigglesworth, G., & Blythe, J. (2017) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199683208.013.27 · Cited by 111
Time in language: Event duration in language comprehension
Coll-Florit, M., & Gennari, S. P. (2010) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.09.002 · Cited by 104
Phonemes: Lexical access and beyond
Kazanina, N., Bowers, J. S., & Idsardi, W. J. (2017) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-017-1362-0 · Cited by 118
Metadata
- Authors
- Saffran, J. R., Newport, E. L., Aslin, R. N., Tunick, R. A., & Barrueco, S.
- Affiliations
- University of Rochester (US)
- Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, University of Rochester
- United States Department of Veterans Affairs (US)
- University of Denver (US)
- Corresponding author
- Saffran, Jenny R.
- Venue
- Psychological Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1997-03
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 101-105
- ISSN
- 0956-7976 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-9280
- OpenAlex
- W2083195749
- Semantic Scholar
- 317b15f1ad52306f877f2a28cb99f1912dc17454
- Cited by
- 675
- References
- 44
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 36 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 76 · 2016: 32 · 2015: 40 · 2014: 37 · 2013: 28 · 2012: 32
- FWCI
- 10.93
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Phonetics and Phonology Research
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
- Keywords
- incidental language learning, word segmentation, connected speech, artificial languages, transition probabilities, statistical learning, auditory learning, children versus adults, first grade students, syllable boundaries
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
