Statistical Learning (SL) is typically considered to be a domain-general mechanism by which cognitive systems discover the underlying statistical regularities in the input. Recent findings, however, show clear differences in processing regularities across modalities and stimuli as well as low correlations between performance on visual and auditory tasks. Why does a presumably domain-general mechanism show distinct patterns of modality and stimulus specificity? Here we claim that the key to this puzzle lies in the prior knowledge brought upon by learners to the learning task. Specifically, we argue that learners' already entrenched expectations about speech co-occurrences from their native language impacts what they learn from novel auditory verbal input. In contrast, learners are free of such entrenchment when processing sequences of visual material such as abstract shapes. We present evidence from three experiments supporting this hypothesis by showing that auditory-verbal tasks display distinct item-specific effects resulting in low correlations between test items. In contrast, non-verbal tasks - visual and auditory - show high correlations between items. Importantly, we also show that individual performance in visual and auditory SL tasks that do not implicate prior knowledge regarding co-occurrence of elements, is highly correlated. In a fourth experiment, we present further support for the entrenchment hypothesis by showing that the variance in performance between different stimuli in auditory-verbal statistical learning tasks can be traced back to their resemblance to participants' native language. We discuss the methodological and theoretical implications of these findings, focusing on models of domain generality/specificity of SL.
J Pers Assess. 2003 Feb;80(1):99-103
[PMID:
12584072]
Trends Cogn Sci. 2015 Mar;19(3):117-25
[PMID:
25631249]
Mem Cognit. 2008 Oct;36(7):1299-305
[PMID:
18927044]
Cognition. 2011 Oct;121(1):127-32
[PMID:
21745660]
Psychol Res. 2017 Sep;81(5):990-1003
[PMID:
27580733]
Behav Res Methods. 2017 Apr;49(2):418-432
[PMID:
26944577]
Acta Psychol (Amst). 2014 Jun;149:1-8
[PMID:
24632521]
Cogn Psychol. 2017 Feb;92:37-64
[PMID:
27907807]
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2005 Nov;134(4):552-64
[PMID:
16316291]
Psychol Sci. 2013 Jul 1;24(7):1243-52
[PMID:
23698615]
Psychon Bull Rev. 2009 Jun;16(3):486-90
[PMID:
19451373]
Cognition. 2008 Aug;108(2):477-99
[PMID:
18533142]
Neuroscience. 2018 Oct 1;389:104-117
[PMID:
28687306]
Trends Cogn Sci. 1999 Aug;3(8):289-290
[PMID:
10431257]
Cognition. 2002 Mar;83(2):B35-42
[PMID:
11869728]
Child Dev. 2016 Jan-Feb;87(1):184-93
[PMID:
26510168]
J Cogn Neurosci. 2014 Aug;26(8):1736-47
[PMID:
24456393]
Cognition. 2012 Feb;122(2):241-6
[PMID:
22088408]
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2017 Jan 5;372(1711):
[PMID:
27872376]
Dev Psychol. 2003 Jul;39(4):706-16
[PMID:
12859124]
Psychol Bull. 2013 Jul;139(4):792-814
[PMID:
23231530]
J Mem Lang. 2013 Apr;68(3):
[PMID:
24403724]
Cogn Sci. 2009 Aug;33(6):1087-1116
[PMID:
20574548]
Dev Sci. 2018 Jul;21(4):e12593
[PMID:
28901038]
Psychol Sci. 2001 Nov;12(6):499-504
[PMID:
11760138]
Cognition. 2009 Jul;112(1):21-54
[PMID:
19409539]
Psychon Bull Rev. 2013 Dec;20(6):1161-9
[PMID:
23716019]
J Cogn Neurosci. 2016 Oct;28(10):1484-500
[PMID:
27315265]
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2005 Jan;31(1):24-39
[PMID:
15641902]
Cogn Psychol. 2004 Mar;48(2):127-62
[PMID:
14732409]
Science. 1996 Dec 13;274(5294):1926-8
[PMID:
8943209]
Mem Cognit. 2011 Aug;39(6):1085-93
[PMID:
21312017]
Cogn Sci. 2012 Mar;36(2):286-304
[PMID:
21974775]
Psychol Sci. 2008 Jul;19(7):678-85
[PMID:
18727783]
Psychol Sci. 2002 Sep;13(5):431-6
[PMID:
12219809]
J Mem Lang. 2015 May 1;81:105-120
[PMID:
25821343]
Dev Sci. 2011 Nov;14(6):1323-9
[PMID:
22010892]
Dev Sci. 2011 May;14(3):464-73
[PMID:
21477186]
Psychol Aging. 2012 Sep;27(3):650-6
[PMID:
22251380]
