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
Items 201–300 of 683
Processing abstract sequence structure: learning without knowing, or knowing without learning?
Boyer, M., Destrebecqz, A., & Cleeremans, A. (2005) · Psychological Research · doi:10.1007/s00426-004-0207-4 · Cited by 46
“For instance, Saffran, Newport, Aslin, and Barrueco (1997) showed how incidental exposure to artificial language-like auditory material (e.g., bupadapatubitutibu....”
BackgroundRapid Serial Auditory Presentation: A New Measure of Statistical Learning in Speech Segmentation.
Franco, A., Eberlen, J., Destrebecqz, A., Cleeremans, A., & Bertels, J. (2015) · Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1027/1618-3169/a000295 · Cited by 37
Statistical Learning of Two Artificial Languages Presented Successively: How Conscious?
Franco, A., Cleeremans, A., & Destrebecqz, A. (2011) · Front. Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00229 · Cited by 49
“However, Saffran et al. (1997) found that adult and children learners were able to process transitional probabilities in passive situations and concluded that statistical learning can proceed incidentally without awareness.”
BackgroundPolysynthesis in the Acquisition of Inuit Languages
Allen, S. E. M. (2017) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199683208.013.25 · Cited by 45
Modulation of brain activity during phonological familiarization.
Majerus, S., der Linden, M. V., Collette, F., Laureys, S., Poncelet, M., Degueldre, C., Delfiore, G., Luxen, A., & Salmon, É. (2005) · Brain and Language · doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2004.07.003 · Cited by 50
Emberson, L. L., Misyak, J. B., Schwade, J. A., Christiansen, M. H., & Goldstein, M. H. (2019) · Developmental Science · doi:10.1111/desc.12847 · Cited by 42
Implicit attentional biases in a changing environment
Wang, B., & Theeuwes, J. (2020) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2020.103064 · Cited by 44
Moser, J., Batterink, L. J., Hegner, Y. L., Schleger, F., Braun, C., Paller, K. A., & Preissl, H. T. (2021) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2021.118378 · Cited by 44
Argument Marking in the Polysynthetic Verb and Its Implications
Mithun, M. (2017) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199683208.013.4 · Cited by 43
Perruchet, P. (2008) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-012370509-9.00149-2 · Cited by 60
Neger, T. M., Rietveld, T. C. M., & Janse, E. (2014) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00628 · Cited by 45
Theeuwes, J., & Failing, M. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108891288 · Cited by 50
Palmer, S. D., & Mattys, S. L. (2016) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1080/17470218.2015.1112825 · Cited by 41
The formation of structurally relevant units in artificial grammar learning
Perruchet, P., Annie Vinter, A., Pacteau, C., & Gallego, J. (2002) · The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A · doi:10.1080/02724980143000451 · Cited by 42
Chunking or not chunking? How do we find words in artificial language learning?
Franco, A., & Destrebecqz, A. (2012) · Advances in Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.5709/acp-0111-3 · Cited by 46
Franco, A., Gaillard, V., Cleeremans, A., & Destrebecqz, A. (2014) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-014-0548-x · Cited by 18
“After exposure to a continuous speech stream, participants perform a two-alternative forced choice (2AFC) task or a recognition task in which they have to distinguish between the words and novel arrangements of the same syllables (Abla, Katahira, & Okanoya, 2008; Saffran et al., 1997).”
MethodThiessen, E. D., & Erickson, L. C. (2013) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0963721413476035 · Cited by 42
Diminished neural adaptation during implicit learning in autism
Schipul, S. E., & Just, M. A. (2015) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.10.039 · Cited by 41
“Implicit learning is believed to underlie the learning of behaviors in two domains that are diagnostically disrupted in ASD, social interaction and language (Gomez andGerken, 1999; Lieberman, 2000; Saffran et al., 1997),which may implicate implicit learning in the emergence of core symptoms of”
Simple statistical regularities presented during sleep are detected but not retained.
Batterink, L. J., & Zhang, S. (2021) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2021.108106 · Cited by 18
Dynamic prediction during perception of everyday events
Eisenberg, M. L., Zacks, J. M., & Flores, S. E. (2018) · Cognitive Research Principles and Implications · doi:10.1186/s41235-018-0146-z · Cited by 36
Naturalistic acquisition in an early language classroom
Dahl, A., & Vulchanova, M. (2014) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00329 · Cited by 41
Cross-situational word learning is both implicit and strategic
Kachergis, G., Yu, C., & Shiffrin, R. (2014) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00588 · Cited by 72
Measuring children’s auditory statistical learning via serial recall
Kidd, E., Arciuli, J., Christiansen, M. H., Isbilen, E. S., Revius, K., & Smithson, M. J. (2020) · Journal of Experimental Child Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2020.104964 · Cited by 44
Learning to predict: Exposure to temporal sequences facilitates prediction of future events
Baker, R., Dexter, M., Hardwicke, T. E., Goldstone, A., & Kourtzi, Z. (2013) · Vision Research · doi:10.1016/j.visres.2013.10.017 · Cited by 43
Büttner, O. B., Florack, A., & Serfas, B. G. (2013) · Journal of Consumer Policy · doi:10.1007/s10603-013-9250-0 · Cited by 38
“A number of studies on implicit learning support the assumption that the implicit system works mostly independently from age (e.g., Meulemans et al. 1998; Saffran et al. 1997; Vinter and Perruchet 2000, 2002).”
BackgroundPolysynthesis in North America
Mithun, M. (2017) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199683208.013.16 · Cited by 38
Detailed Behavioral Analysis as a Window Into Cross‐Situational Word Learning
Suanda, S. H., & Namy, L. L. (2012) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01218.x · Cited by 37
Perruchet, P., & Tillmann, B. (2010) · Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01074.x · Cited by 41
Bogaerts, L., Siegelman, N., & Frost, R. (2016) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-015-0996-z · Cited by 39
Display probability modulates attentional capture by onset distractors
Sayim, B. (2010) · Journal of Vision · doi:10.1167/10.3.10 · Cited by 36
Polysynthesis and Language Contact
van der Voort, H., & Bakker, P. (2017) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199683208.013.23 · Cited by 37
Developmental Changes in Cross‐Situational Word Learning: The Inverse Effect of Initial Accuracy
Fitneva, S. A., & Christiansen, M. H. (2015) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1111/cogs.12322 · Cited by 35
Perkovic, S., & Orquin, J. L. (2017) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797617733831 · Cited by 37
Statistical regularities across trials bias attentional selection.
Li, A.-S., & Theeuwes, J. (2020) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · doi:10.1037/xhp0000753 · Cited by 41
Sustained Pupil Responses Are Modulated by Predictability of Auditory Sequences
Milne, A. E., Zhao, S., Tampakaki, C., Bury, G., & Maria Chait, A. (2021) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.2879-20.2021 · Cited by 42
Visual statistical learning in children and young adults: how implicit?
Bertels, J., Boursain, E., Destrebecqz, A., & Gaillard, V. (2015) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01541 · Cited by 36
Learning, Memory, and Sleep in Children
Gómez, R. L., Newman-Smith, K. C., Breslin, J. H., & Bootzin, R. R. (2011) · Sleep Medicine Clinics · doi:10.1016/j.jsmc.2010.12.002 · Cited by 37
Vaden, K. I., Piquado, T., & Hickok, G. (2011) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/jocn.2011.21620 · Cited by 36
Implicit Statistical Learning and Language Skills in Bilingual Children
Yim, D., & Rudoy, J. D. (2012) · Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research · doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2012/11-0243 · Cited by 45
Language Learning without Control: The Role of the PFC
Friederici, A. D., Mueller, J. L., Sehm, B., & Ragert, P. (2013) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00350 · Cited by 34
Mapping sound to meaning: Connections between learning about sounds and learning about words
Saffran, J. R., & Estes, K. G. (2006) · Advances in child development and behavior · doi:10.1016/s0065-2407(06)80003-0 · Cited by 39
Self-citationCortical encoding of melodic expectations in human temporal cortexPreprint
Liberto, G. M. D., Pelofi, C., Bianco, R., Patel, P., Mehta, A. D., Herrero, J. L., Alain De Cheveigné, A., Shamma, S., & Mesgarani, N. (2019) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/714634 · Cited by 37
The Subjectivity of the Notion of Polysynthesis
Sadock, J. M. (2017) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199683208.013.7 · Cited by 35
Infants’ statistical learning: 2- and 5-month-olds’ segmentation of continuous visual sequences
Slone, L. K., & Johnson, S. P. (2015) · Journal of Experimental Child Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2015.01.007 · Cited by 34
Statistical Learning as a Key to Cracking Chinese Orthographic Codes
He, X., & Tong, S. X. (2016) · Scientific Studies of Reading · doi:10.1080/10888438.2016.1243541 · Cited by 37
Prefrontal and Hippocampal Structure Predict Statistical Learning Ability in Early Childhood
Finn, A., Kharitonova, M., Holtby, N., & Sheridan, M. (2019) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/jocn_a_01342 · Cited by 34
“has shown no difference in statistical learning outcomes between this age of children and adults (Saffran et al., 1997).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialThe Role of Natural Class Features in the Acquisition of Phonotactic Regularities
Kuo, L.-J. (2009) · Journal of Psycholinguistic Research · doi:10.1007/s10936-008-9090-2 · Cited by 40
The nature of the language input affects brain activation during learning from a natural language
Plante, E., Patterson, D., Gómez, R., Almryde, K., White, M., & Asbjørnsen, A. (2015) · Journal of Neurolinguistics · doi:10.1016/j.jneuroling.2015.04.005 · Cited by 31
Long, N. M., Kuhl, B. A., & Chun, M. M. (2018) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781119170174.epcn109 · Cited by 46
Denhovska, N., Serratrice, L., & Payne, J. (2015) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/lang.12142 · Cited by 42
“…constructions are learned more easily than lowfrequency ones through associative learning mechanisms, and there is ample evidence that humans are extremely sensitive to the frequencies of elements that co-occur together in the input (Ellis, 2002; Lieven, 2010; Saffran, 2003; Saffran et al., 1997).”
Farthouat, J., Franco, A., Mary, A., Delpouve, J., Wens, V., Beeck, M. O. D., Tiège, X. D., & Peigneux, P. (2016) · Brain Topography · doi:10.1007/s10548-016-0518-y · Cited by 33
Statistical learning for speech segmentation: Age-related changes and underlying mechanisms.
Palmer, S. D., Hutson, J., & Mattys, S. L. (2018) · Psychology and Aging · doi:10.1037/pag0000292 · Cited by 32
Learning and maintaining new vocabulary in persons with aphasia: Two controlled case studies
Tuomiranta, L., Grönholm-Nyman, P., Kohen, F. P., Rautakoski, P., Laine, M., & Martin, N. (2011) · Aphasiology · doi:10.1080/02687038.2011.571384 · Cited by 34
Diminutives in child-directed speech supplement metric with distributional word segmentation cues
Kempe, V., Brooks, P. J., & Gillis, S. (2005) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/bf03196360 · Cited by 34
“Various informational sources—for example, rhythmic and prosodic patterns (e.g., Jusczyk, Houston, & Newsome, 1999; Morgan, 1996; Morgan & Saffran, 1995), utterance boundaries (Brent & Siskind, 2001), phonotactic regularities (e.g., Mattys & Jusczyk, 2001b), transitional probabilities between phonemes or syllables (e.…”
BackgroundTwo distinct origins of long-term learning effects in verbal short-term memory
Majerus, S., Perez, T. M., & Oberauer, K. (2011) · Journal of Memory and Language · doi:10.1016/j.jml.2011.07.006 · Cited by 37
Perceptual learning and representational learning in humans and animals
Fiser, J. (2009) · Learning & Behavior · doi:10.3758/lb.37.2.141 · Cited by 34
A negative order-repetition priming effect: inhibition of order in unattended auditory sequences?
Hughes, R., & Jones, D. (2003) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance · doi:10.1037/0096-1523.29.1.199 · Cited by 40
Háden, G. P., Bouwer, F. L., Honing, H., et al. (2023) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2023.105670 · Cited by 33
Statistical learning of novel graphotactic constraints in children and adults
Samara, A., & Caravolas, M. (2014) · Journal of Experimental Child Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2013.11.009 · Cited by 34
“For example, 8-month-old infants, children and adults are able to compute and exploit syllabic transitional information in order to postulate word boundaries (e.g., Saffran, Aslin, & Newport, 1996; Saffran et al., 1997).”
BackgroundArnon, I. (2019) · Topics in Cognitive Science · doi:10.1111/tops.12428 · Cited by 35
Mueller, J. L., Bahlmann, J., & Friederici, A. (2008) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/jocn.2008.20511 · Cited by 39
Language Obsolescence in Polysynthetic Languages
Vakhtin, N., & Gruzdeva, E. (2017) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199683208.013.24 · Cited by 32
Deficits in statistical leaning of auditory sequences among adults with dyslexia
Kahta, S., & Schiff, R. (2019) · Dyslexia · doi:10.1002/dys.1618 · Cited by 32
The role of perceptual salience during the segmentation of connected speech
Toro, J. M., Sebastián-Gallés, N., & Mattys, S. (2009) · The European Journal of Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1080/09541440802405584 · Cited by 34
Testelets, Y. G., & Lander, Y. A. (2017) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199683208.013.51 · Cited by 31
The role of statistical learning in the acquisition of motion event construal in a second language
Treffers‐Daller, J., & Calude, A. S. (2015) · International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism · doi:10.1080/13670050.2015.1027146 · Cited by 31
“To the best of our knowledge, this is the first paper in which the hypothesis is tested that L2 learners make use of statistical learning (Saffran et al. 1997) in restructuring motion event construal in their L2.”
InfluentialDissociable behavioural outcomes of visual statistical learning
Bays, B. C., Turk‐Browne, N. B., & Seitz, A. R. (2015) · Visual Cognition · doi:10.1080/13506285.2016.1139647 · Cited by 31
Granena, G. (2020) · doi:10.1017/9781108625616 · Cited by 27
Neurophysiological tracking of speech-structure learning in typical and dyslexic readers
Zhang, M., Riecke, L., & Bonte, M. L. (2021) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2021.107889 · Cited by 34
When Audition Dominates Vision
Robinson, C. W., & Sloutsky, V. M. (2012) · Experimental Psychology (formerly Zeitschrift für Experimentelle Psychologie) · doi:10.1027/1618-3169/a000177 · Cited by 31
Perceptual tests of an algorithm for musical key-finding.
Schmuckler, M. A., & Tomovski, R. (2005) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance · doi:10.1037/0096-1523.31.5.1124 · Cited by 31
Weiermann, B., Cock, J. J., & Meier, B. (2010) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/a0021038 · Cited by 31
Word Segmentation Cues in German Child-Directed Speech: A Corpus Analysis
Stärk, K., Kidd, E., & Frost, R. (2021) · Language and Speech · doi:10.1177/0023830920979016 · Cited by 27
Event-related potentials index segmentation of nonsense sounds
Sanders, L. D., Ameral, V. E., & Sayles, K. (2008) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.11.005 · Cited by 29
Patterns of Innovation and Retention in Templatic Polysynthesis
Vajda, E. J. (2017) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199683208.013.21 · Cited by 29
Voice Emotion Recognition by Children With Mild-to-Moderate Hearing Loss
Cannon, S. A., & Chatterjee, M. (2018) · Ear and Hearing · doi:10.1097/aud.0000000000000637 · Cited by 30
Mirman, D., Estes, K. G., & Magnuson, J. (2010) · Infancy · doi:10.1111/j.1532-7078.2009.00023.x · Cited by 30
“Studies with infants, children, and adults indicate that statistical learning is a mechanism available throughout life, which is capable of acting on many levels of linguistic structure, including phonemes (e.g., Maye, Weiss, & Aslin, 2008), syllables (e.g, Saffran, Newport, Aslin, Tunick, & Barrueco, 1997; Saffran &…”
BackgroundLanguage Acquisition as Complex Category Formation
Lotto, A. J. (2000) · Phonetica · doi:10.1159/000028472 · Cited by 29
Statistically coherent labels facilitate categorization in 8-month-olds
Erickson, L. C., Thiessen, E. D., & Graf Estes, K. (2014) · Journal of Memory and Language · doi:10.1016/j.jml.2014.01.002 · Cited by 27
Torkildsen, J. V. K., Bratlie, S. S., Kristensen, J. K., Gustafsson, J., Lyster, S. H., Snow, C. E., Hulme, C., Mononen, R., Næss, K.-A. B., López-Pedersen, A., et al. (2021) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/edu0000688 · Cited by 30
Does complexity matter? Meta-analysis of learner performance in artificial grammar tasks
Schiff, R., & Katan, P. (2014) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01084 · Cited by 28
“We excluded studies that did not include and describe a visual chart of the finite state grammar used (e.g., Saffran et al., 1996, 1997).”
MethodPolysynthesis and Head Marking
Nichols, J. (2017) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199683208.013.2 · Cited by 27
Fortescue, M., Mithun, M., & Evans, N. (2017) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199683208.013.1 · Cited by 28
Neural basis of implicit motor sequence learning: Modulation of cortical power
Lum, J. A. G., Clark, G. M., Barhoun, P., Hill, A. T., Hyde, C. E., & Wilson, P. H. (2022) · Psychophysiology · doi:10.1111/psyp.14179 · Cited by 27
“Implicit sequence learning describes the acquisition of skills and knowledge, generated by repeatedly executing or processing serially ordered movements or percepts (e.g., Fiser & Aslin, 2002; Isbilen et al., 2020; Nissen & Bullemer, 1987; Saffran et al., 1997).”
BackgroundMattissen, J. (2017) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199683208.013.47 · Cited by 25
Moreau, C. N., Joanisse, M. F., Mulgrew, J., & Batterink, L. J. (2022) · Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.dcn.2022.101154 · Cited by 38
Factors That Influence Fast Mapping in Children Exposed to Spanish and English
Alt, M., Meyers, C., & Figueroa, C. R. (2013) · Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research · doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2012/11-0092 · Cited by 26
Dahl, Ö. (2017) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199683208.013.3 · Cited by 24
Rice, S. (2017) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199683208.013.53 · Cited by 25
Polysynthesis in Sora (Munda) with Special Reference to Noun Incorporation
Anderson, G. D. S. (2017) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199683208.013.50 · Cited by 24
Statistical Learning and Social Competency: The Mediating Role of Language
Parks, K. M. A., Griffith, L. A., Armstrong, N. B., & Stevenson, R. A. (2020) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-020-61047-6 · Cited by 30
Failure to consolidate statistical learning in developmental dyslexia
Ballan, R., Durrant, S. J., Manoach, D. S., & Gabay, Y. (2022) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-022-02169-y · Cited by 23
Syllables in Sync Form a Link: Neural Phase-locking Reflects Word Knowledge during Language Learning
Batterink, L. J. (2020) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/jocn_a_01581 · Cited by 21
Implicit language learning: Adults’ ability to segment words in Norwegian
Kittleson, M. M., Aguilar, J. M., Tokerud, G. L., Plante, E., & Asbjørnsen, A. (2010) · Bilingualism · doi:10.1017/s1366728910000039 · Cited by 24
Speech perception and speech production as indicators of reading difficulty
Post, Y. V., Foorman, B. R., & Hiscock, M. (1997) · Annals of Dyslexia · doi:10.1007/s11881-997-0018-6 · Cited by 25
The Lexicon in Polysynthetic Languages
Dorais, L. (2017) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199683208.013.9 · Cited by 23
Drapeau, L. (2017) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199683208.013.31 · Cited by 23
Gleaning Structure from Sound: The Role of Prosodic Contrast in Learning Non-adjacent Dependencies
Grama, I., Kerkhoff, A., & Wijnen, F. N. K. (2016) · Journal of Psycholinguistic Research · doi:10.1007/s10936-016-9412-8 · Cited by 23
Paraskevopoulos, E., Chalas, N., & Bamidis, P. D. (2017) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-017-16592-y · Cited by 23
Mark my words: High frequency marker words impact early stages of language learning.
Frost, R. L. A., Padraic Monaghan, B., & Christiansen, M. H. (2019) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/xlm0000683 · Cited by 22
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
