4.4 Article

Learning at a distance I. Statistical learning of non-adjacent dependencies

期刊

COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY
卷 48, 期 2, 页码 127-162

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/S0010-0285(03)00128-2

关键词

-

资金

  1. NICHD NIH HHS [HD37082] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIDCD NIH HHS [R01 DC000167, R01 DC000167-26, DC00167] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In earlier work we have shown that adults, young children, and infants are capable of computing transitional probabilities among adjacent syllables in rapidly presented streams of speech, and of using these statistics to group adjacent syllables into word-like units. In the present experiments we ask whether adult learners are also capable of such computations when the only available patterns occur in non-adjacent elements. In the first experiment, we present streams of speech in which precisely the same kinds of syllable regularities occur as in our previous studies, except that the patterned relations among syllables occur between non-adjacent syllables (with an intervening syllable that is unrelated). Under these circumstances we do not obtain our previous results: learners are quite poor at acquiring regular relations among non-adjacent syllables, even when the patterns are objectively quite simple. In subsequent experiments we show that learners are, in contrast, quite capable of acquiring patterned relations among non-adjacent segments-both non-adjacent consonants (with an intervening vocalic segment that is unrelated) and non-adjacent vowels (with an intervening consonantal segment that is unrelated). Finally, we discuss why human learners display these strong differences in learning differing types of non-adjacent regularities, and we conclude by suggesting that these contrasts in learnability may account for why human languages display non-adjacent regularities of one type much more widely than non-adjacent regularities of the other type. (C) 2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据