The DOI matches its Crossref record; 68 of the 68 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Explicit and Implicit Second Language Training Differentially Affect the Achievement of Native-like Brain Activation Patterns
Open accessAbstract
It is widely believed that adults cannot learn a foreign language in the same way that children learn a first language. However, recent evidence suggests that adult learners of a foreign language can come to rely on native-like language brain mechanisms. Here, we show that the type of language training crucially impacts this outcome. We used an artificial language paradigm to examine longitudinally whether explicit training (that approximates traditional grammar-focused classroom settings) and implicit training (that approximates immersion settings) differentially affect neural (electrophysiological) and behavioral (performance) measures of syntactic processing. Results showed that performance of explicitly and implicitly trained groups did not differ at either low or high proficiency. In contrast, electrophysiological (ERP) measures revealed striking differences between the groups' neural activity at both proficiency levels in response to syntactic violations. Implicit training yielded an N400 at low proficiency, whereas at high proficiency, it elicited a pattern typical of native speakers: an anterior negativity followed by a P600 accompanied by a late anterior negativity. Explicit training, by contrast, yielded no significant effects at low proficiency and only an anterior positivity followed by a P600 at high proficiency. Although the P600 is reminiscent of native-like processing, this response pattern as a whole is not. Thus, only implicit training led to an electrophysiological signature typical of native speakers. Overall, the results suggest that adult foreign language learners can come to rely on native-like language brain mechanisms, but that the conditions under which the language is learned may be crucial in attaining this goal.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Updating P300: An integrative theory of P3a and P3b
Polich, J. (2007) · Clinical Neurophysiology · doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2007.04.019 · Cited by 7,919
The Biological Foundations of Language
Lenneberg, E. H. (1967) · Hospital Practice · doi:10.1080/21548331.1967.11707799 · Cited by 6,605
Detection Theory: A User's Guide
Macmillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. (1991) · Cited by 5,415
Reading Senseless Sentences: Brain Potentials Reflect Semantic Incongruity
Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1980) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.7350657 · Cited by 4,888
Detection theory: A user's guide
Lories, G. (1993) · Behavioural Processes · doi:10.1016/0376-6357(93)90083-4 · Cited by 2,835
CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK AND LEARNER UPTAKE: Negotiation of Form in Communicative Classrooms
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263197001034 · Cited by 2,629 · cited 1×
“This is consistent with feedback that occurs in both explicit (e.g., classroom) and implicit (e.g., immersion) input settings (Lyster & Mori, 2006; Lyster & Ranta, 1997).”
Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/0023-8333.00136 · Cited by 2,569 · cited 7×
“…that provides learners with information about L2 grammar rules or directs them to search for rules, and implicit training is defined as training that engages L2 learners with the target language but does not provide any explicit information or direction to search for rules (Norris & Ortega, 2000).”
InfluentialContributions of memory circuits to language: the declarative/procedural model
Ullman, M. T. (2004) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2003.10.008 · Cited by 1,893
Self-citationEvent-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly
Osterhout, L., & Holcomb, P. J. (1992) · Journal of Memory and Language · doi:10.1016/0749-596x(92)90039-z · Cited by 1,856
Maturational constraints on language learning
Newport, E. L. (1990) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1401_2 · Cited by 1,738
Cited by
Interaction and instructed second language acquisition
Loewen, S., & Sato, M. (2018) · Language Teaching · doi:10.1017/s0261444818000125 · Cited by 377
The Declarative/Procedural Model
Ullman, M. T. (2016) · Neurobiology of Language · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-407794-2.00076-6 · Cited by 294
Self-citationL1 and L2 processing in the bilingual brain: A meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies
Liu, H., & Cao, F. (2016) · Brain and Language · doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2016.05.013 · Cited by 178
N400 ERPs for actions: building meaning in context
Amoruso, L., Gelormini, C., Aboitiz, F., Alvarez González, M., Manes, F., Cardona, J. F., & Ibanez, A. (2013) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2013.00057 · Cited by 125
Steinhauer, K. (2014) · Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1093/applin/amu028 · Cited by 120
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Morgan-Short, K., Steinhauer, K., Sanz, C., & Ullman, M. T.
- Venue
- Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
- Publisher
- MIT Press
- Published
- 2012-04-01
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 933-947
- ISSN
- 0898-929X (ISSN-L)
- 1530-8898
- OpenAlex
- W2065052790
- Cited by
- 289
- References
- 68
- FWCI
- 6.63
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Explicit and Implicit Second Language Training Differentially Affect the Achievement of Native-like Brain Activation Patterns. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1162/jocn_a_00119
- The paper
- Morgan-Short, K., Steinhauer, K., Sanz, C., & Ullman, M. T. (2012). Explicit and Implicit Second Language Training Differentially Affect the Achievement of Native-like Brain Activation Patterns. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00119
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.