Beyond dissociation logic: evidence for controlled and automatic influences in artificial grammar learning.

Evidence for unconscious learning has typically been based on dissociations between direct and indirect tests of learning. Because of some inherent problems with dissociation logic, we applied the logic of opposition to 2 artificial grammar learning experiments. In Experiment 1, participants were ex...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Journal of Experimental Psychology. General Vol. 129; no. 4; pp. 457 - 471
Autores principales: Higham, Philip A., Vokey, John R., Pritchard, J. Lynne
Formato: Artículo
Publicado: American Psychological Association December 2000
Materias:
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ssf&AN=513044868&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ssf
    uiTerm: 513044868
    longDbName: Social Sciences Full Text (H.W. Wilson)
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        00963445
        EPG
      jtl: Journal of Experimental Psychology. General
      issn: 00963445
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: December 2000
      vid: 129
      iid: 4
      pid: 34
      pub: American Psychological Association
    artinfo:
      ui:
        513044868
        10.1037/0096-3445.129.4.457
      ppf: 457
      ppct: 14
      formats:
      tig:
        atl: Beyond dissociation logic: evidence for controlled and automatic influences in artificial grammar learning.
      aug:
        au:
          Higham, Philip A.
          Vokey, John R.
          Pritchard, J. Lynne
      su:
        Incidental learning
        Consciousness
      sug:
        subj:
          Incidental learning
          Consciousness
      ab: Evidence for unconscious learning has typically been based on dissociations between direct and indirect tests of learning. Because of some inherent problems with dissociation logic, we applied the logic of opposition to 2 artificial grammar learning experiments. In Experiment 1, participants were exposed to 2 different sets of letter strings, generated from 2 different grammars, and later rated test strings for grammaticality with either in-concert (rate grammatical strings consistent with either structure) or opposition (rate grammatical only strings from 1 of the structures) instructions. Manipulating response deadline affected controlled, but not automatic influences. In Experiment 2, after similar training, a source-monitoring test was administered from which the in-concert and opposition conditions were derived. The test indicated that varying the retention interval affected controlled, but not automatic, influences. The results are discussed in terms of awareness, knowledge representation, and metacognitive processing. Reprinted by permission of the publisher.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Article
      src: R
    language: English
    refInfo:
    copyright:
      @attributes:
        flag: N
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N