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
(1975) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 2,045
Implicit learning of artificial grammars
Reber, A. S. (1967) · Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior · doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(67)80149-x · Cited by 2,026
Maturational constraints on language learning
Newport, E. L. (1990) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1401_2 · Cited by 1,738
Self-citationImplicit learning and tacit knowledge: an essay on the cognitive unconscious
(1994) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.31-3490 · Cited by 1,432
Word Segmentation: The Role of Distributional Cues
Saffran, J. R., Newport, E. L., & Aslin, R. N. (1996) · Journal of Memory and Language · doi:10.1006/jmla.1996.0032 · Cited by 1,405 · cited 4×
“We (Saffran et al., 1996) demonstrated, in an explicit-learning task, that adult subjects were able to use transitional probabilities to learn the multisyllabic words of an artificial language presented as a synthesized speech stream containing no other cues to word boundaries.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citationCharacteristics of dissociable human learning systems
Shanks, D. R., & St. John, M. F. (1994) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00035032 · Cited by 1,163
Infants′ Detection of the Sound Patterns of Words in Fluent Speech
Jusczyk, P. W., & Aslin, R. N. (1995) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1006/cogp.1995.1010 · Cited by 1,061
Self-citationInfants' Preference for the Predominant Stress Patterns of English Words
Jusczyk, P. W., Cutler, A., & Redanz, N. J. (1993) · Child Development · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1993.tb02935.x · Cited by 1,006
Infants' Preference for the Predominant Stress Patterns of English Words
Jusczyk, P. W., Cutler, A., & Redanz, N. J. (1993) · Child Development · doi:10.2307/1131210 · Cited by 981
Infants' sensitivity to phonotactic patterns in the native language.
Jusczyk, P., Luce, P. A., & Charles-Luce, J. (1994) · Journal of Memory and Language · doi:10.1006/jmla.1994.1030 · Cited by 858
Automatic processing of fundamental information: The case of frequency of occurrence.
Hasher, L., & Zacks, R. T. (1984) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037//0003-066x.39.12.1372 · Cited by 818
Infants′ Sensitivity to the Sound Patterns of Native Language Words
Jusczyk, P., Friederici, A., Wessels, J., Svenkerud, V. Y., & Jusczyk, A. M. (1993) · Journal of Memory and Language · doi:10.1006/jmla.1993.1022 · Cited by 750
Thomas, M. (1997) · Language · doi:10.2307/416043 · Cited by 717
Automatic processing of fundamental information: The case of frequency of occurrence.
Hasher, L., & Zacks, R. T. (1984) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.39.12.1372 · Cited by 609
Age, rate, and eventual attainment in second language acquisition
Krashen, S. D., Long, M. A., & Scarcella, R. C. (1979) · TESOL Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3586451 · Cited by 581 · cited 2×
“Critical-period effects (i.e., superiority of child learners over adults) emerge later in learning, particularly for more complex syntactic and morphological structures (e.g., Johnson & Newport, 1989; Krashen et al., 1982; Newport, 1990; Slavoff & Johnson, 1995).”
BackgroundSynthetic grammar learning: Implicit rule abstraction or explicit fragmentary knowledge?
Perruchet, P., & Pacteau, C. (1990) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.119.3.264 · Cited by 526
Distributional regularity and phonotactic constraints are useful for segmentation
Brent, M. R., & Cartwright, T. A. (1996) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/s0010-0277(96)00719-6 · Cited by 514 · cited 2×
“One proposed solution to the word segmentation problem is that infants may be able to exploit statistical cues to word boundaries (Aslin, Woodward, LaMendola, & Bever, 1996; Brent & Cartwright, 1996; Hayes & Clark, 1970; Saffran, Newport, & Aslin, 1996).”
BackgroundMethodA case of syntactical learning and judgment: How conscious and how abstract?
Dulany, D. E., Carlson, R. A., & Dewey, G. I. (1984) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.113.4.541 · Cited by 512
Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society
Goddard, N. (1993) · Cited by 405
Learning artificial grammars with competitive chunking.
Servan-Schreiber, E., & Anderson, J. R. (1990) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/0278-7393.16.4.592 · Cited by 400
Learning artificial grammars with competitive chunking.
Servan-Schreiber, E., & Anderson, J. R. (1990) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037//0278-7393.16.4.592 · Cited by 400
Child-Adult Differences in Second Language Acquisition
Bernhardt, E. B., Krashen, S. D., Scarcella, R. C., & Long, M. H. (1984) · Modern Language Journal · doi:10.2307/328017 · Cited by 301
Analogic and abstraction strategies in synthetic grammar learning: A functionalist interpretation
Reber, A. S., & Allen, R. (1978) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/0010-0277(78)90013-6 · Cited by 285
Mechanisms of Implicit Learning: Connectionist Models of Sequence Processing
Axel Cleeremans, B. (1993) · Cited by 277
Mechanisms of Implicit Learning
Cleeremans, A. (1993) · The MIT Press eBooks · doi:10.7551/mitpress/4528.001.0001 · Cited by 232
Beyond Modularity: A Developmental Perspective on Cognitive Science*
Karmiloff‐Smith, A. (1994) · International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders · doi:10.3109/13682829409041485 · Cited by 177
Statistical structure and implicit serial learning.
Stadler, M. A. (1992) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/0278-7393.18.2.318 · Cited by 149
The processing of frequency information: An automatic mechanism?
Hasher, L., & Chromiak, W. (1977) · Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior · doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(77)80045-5 · Cited by 145
The Effects of Age on the Rate of Learning a Second Language
Slavoff, G. R., & Johnson, J. S. (1995) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263100013723 · Cited by 59
Task-specificity and species-specificity in the study of language: A methodological note
Osherson, D. N., & Wasow, T. (1976) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/0010-0277(76)90005-6 · Cited by 53
Developmental and intellectual differences in frequency processing.
Ellis, N. R., Palmer, R. L., & Reeves, C. L. (1988) · Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1037//0012-1649.24.1.38 · Cited by 45
Developmental and intellectual differences in frequency processing.
Ellis, N. R., Palmer, R. L., & Reeves, C. L. (1988) · Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1037/0012-1649.24.1.38 · Cited by 37
Truly Incidental Encoding of Frequency Information
Hasher, L., Zacks, R. T., Rose, K. C., & Sanft, H. (1987) · The American Journal of Psychology · doi:10.2307/1422643 · Cited by 31
Distributional Regularities of Form Class in Speech to Young Children
Mintz, T. H., Newport, E. L., & Bever, T. G. (1995) · ScholarWorks@UMassAmherst (University of Massachusetts Amherst) · Cited by 20
Self-citationGraded state machines: the representation of temporal contingencies in feedback networks
Cleeremans, A., Servan‐Schreiber, D., & McClelland, J. L. (1995) · Dépôt institutionnel de l'Université libre de Bruxelles (Université Libre de Bruxelles) · Cited by 7
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-citation
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
