title: Statistical learning as an individual ability: Theoretical perspectives and empirical evidence.
abstract: Although the power of statistical learning (SL) in explaining a wide range of linguistic functions is gaining increasing support, relatively little research has focused on this theoretical construct from the perspective of individual differences. However, to be able to reliably link individual differences in a given ability such as language learning to individual differences in SL, three critical theoretical questions should be posed: Is SL a componential or unified ability? Is it nested within other general cognitive abilities? Is it a stable capacity of an individual? Following an initial mapping sentence outlining the possible dimensions of SL, we employed a battery of SL tasks in the visual and auditory modalities, using verbal and non-verbal stimuli, with adjacent and non-adjacent contingencies. SL tasks were administered along with general cognitive tasks in a within-subject design at two time points to explore our theoretical questions. We found that SL, as measured by some tasks, is a stable and reliable capacity of an individual. Moreover, we found SL to be independent of general cognitive abilities such as intelligence or working memory. However, SL is not a unified capacity, so that individual sensitivity to conditional probabilities is not uniform across modalities and stimuli.
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology, The Hebrew University.
authors.forename: Noam
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Siegelman
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology, The Hebrew University ; Haskins Laboratories, New Haven ; The Basque Center for Brain and Language.
authors.forename: Ram
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Frost
keywords: Statistical learning; individual differences; predicting linguistic abilities
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2009 Mar;35(2):371-80
references.pmid: 19271852
references.citation: Lang Cogn Process. 2012 Jan 1;27(2):231-256
references.pmid: 23678205
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2002 Sep;13(5):431-6
references.pmid: 12219809
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2013 Jul 1;24(7):1243-52
references.pmid: 23698615
references.citation: Cognition. 2011 Oct;121(1):127-32
references.pmid: 21745660
references.citation: Cogn Sci. 2013 Sep-Oct;37(7):1290-320
references.pmid: 23772795
references.citation: Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 2003 Feb;35(1):116-24
references.pmid: 12723786
references.citation: Child Dev. 2009 May-Jun;80(3):674-85
references.pmid: 19489896
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2001 Nov;12(6):499-504
references.pmid: 11760138
references.citation: J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2009 Apr;52(2):321-35
references.pmid: 19339700
references.citation: Cognition. 2010 Sep;116(3):382-93
references.pmid: 20605017
references.citation: Nat Neurosci. 2000 Mar;3(3):264-9
references.pmid: 10700259
references.citation: Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2008 Dec;1145:113-31
references.pmid: 19076393
references.citation: Dev Psychol. 2012 Jan;48(1):171-84
references.pmid: 21967562
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2004 Sep;30(5):1119-30
references.pmid: 15355140
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2007 Jan;33(1):34-54
references.pmid: 17201553
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 2006 May;10(5):233-8
references.pmid: 16616590
references.citation: Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2011 May;64(5):1021-40
references.pmid: 21347988
references.citation: Front Psychol. 2014 Mar 06;5:175
references.pmid: 24639661
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2005 Jun;16(6):451-9
references.pmid: 15943671
references.citation: Front Psychol. 2010 Sep 14;1:31
references.pmid: 21833201
references.citation: Dev Sci. 2011 May;14(3):464-73
references.pmid: 21477186
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2012 Sep;38(5):1425-31
references.pmid: 22329789
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Gen. 2005 Nov;134(4):552-64
references.pmid: 16316291
references.citation: Brain Lang. 2013 Oct;127(1):46-54
references.pmid: 23312790
references.citation: J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 2007 Summer;12(3):317-34
references.pmid: 17548805
references.citation: Cognition. 2010 Sep;116(3):321-40
references.pmid: 20573341
references.citation: Front Hum Neurosci. 2014 Jun 18;8:437
references.pmid: 24994975
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2002 May;28(3):458-67
references.pmid: 12018498
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2009 Jun;16(3):486-90
references.pmid: 19451373
references.citation: Cognition. 2008 Dec;109(3):423-30
references.pmid: 19019350
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2006 Oct;17(10):905-12
references.pmid: 17100792
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 2015 Mar;19(3):117-25
references.pmid: 25631249
references.citation: Science. 1996 Dec 13;274(5294):1926-8
references.pmid: 8943209
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2013 Dec;20(6):1161-9
references.pmid: 23716019
references.citation: Cogn Psychol. 2004 Mar;48(2):127-62
references.pmid: 14732409
references.citation: Science. 1999 Jan 1;283(5398):77-80
references.pmid: 9872745
references.citation: Cognition. 2010 Mar;114(3):356-71
references.pmid: 19922909
references.citation: Cognition. 2001 Sep;81(2):149-69
references.pmid: 11376640
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2005 Jan;31(1):24-39
references.pmid: 15641902
references.citation: Behav Brain Sci. 2012 Oct;35(5):263-79
references.pmid: 22929057
references.citation: Cognition. 2003 Mar;87(2):B69-77
references.pmid: 12590043
references.citation: Cognition. 2002 Mar;83(2):B35-42
references.pmid: 11869728
references.citation: Psychol Bull. 2013 Jul;139(4):792-814
references.pmid: 23231530
references.citation: Neurosci Lett. 2009 Sep 18;461(2):145-9
references.pmid: 19539701
references.citation: Cogn Sci. 2012 Mar;36(2):286-304
references.pmid: 21974775
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Gen. 2001 Sep;130(3):401-26
references.pmid: 11561917
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1991 Sep;17(5):888-96
references.pmid: 1834770
references.citation: Mem Cognit. 2004 Sep;32(6):956-64
references.pmid: 15673183