↓ Skip to main content

Statistical learning under incidental versus intentional conditions

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, July 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
122 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Statistical learning under incidental versus intentional conditions
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, July 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00747
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joanne Arciuli, Janne von Koss Torkildsen, David J. Stevens, Ian C. Simpson

Abstract

Statistical learning (SL) studies have shown that participants are able to extract regularities in input they are exposed to without any instruction to do so. This and other findings, such as the fact that participants are often unable to verbalize their acquired knowledge, suggest that SL can occur implicitly or incidentally. Interestingly, several studies using the related paradigms of artificial grammar learning and serial response time tasks have shown that explicit instructions can aid learning under certain conditions. Within the SL literature, however, very few studies have contrasted incidental and intentional learning conditions. The aim of the present study was to investigate the effect of having prior knowledge of the statistical regularities in the input when undertaking a task of visual sequential SL. Specifically, we compared the degree of SL exhibited by participants who were informed (intentional group) versus those who were uninformed (incidental group) about the presence of embedded triplets within a familiarization stream. Somewhat surprisingly, our results revealed that there were no statistically significant differences (and only a small effect size) in the amount of SL exhibited between the intentional versus the incidental groups. We discuss the ways in which this result can be interpreted and suggest that short presentation times for stimuli in the familiarization stream in our study may have limited the opportunity for explicit learning. This suggestion is in line with recent research revealing a statistically significant difference (and a large effect size) between intentional versus incidental groups using a very similar visual sequential SL task, but with longer presentation times. Finally, we outline a number of directions for future research.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 122 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Netherlands 2 2%
Russia 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Unknown 116 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 28%
Student > Bachelor 18 15%
Researcher 15 12%
Student > Master 15 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 7%
Other 12 10%
Unknown 19 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 66 54%
Neuroscience 13 11%
Linguistics 11 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Arts and Humanities 3 2%
Other 6 5%
Unknown 19 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 July 2014.
All research outputs
#14,782,026
of 22,757,541 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#16,049
of 29,671 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#125,102
of 225,812 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#273
of 388 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,757,541 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,671 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 225,812 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 388 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.