Publications

Displaying 1 - 7 of 7
  • Poletiek, F. H., & Van Schijndel, T. J. P. (2009). Stimulus set size and statistical coverage of the grammar in artificial grammar learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(6), 1058-1064. doi:10.3758/PBR.16.6.1058.

    Abstract

    Adults and children acquire knowledge of the structure of their environment on the basis of repeated exposure to samples of structured stimuli. In the study of inductive learning, a straightforward issue is how much sample information is needed to learn the structure. The present study distinguishes between two measures for the amount of information in the sample: set size and the extent to which the set of exemplars statistically covers the underlying structure. In an artificial grammar learning experiment, learning was affected by the sample’s statistical coverage of the grammar, but not by its mere size. Our result suggests an alternative explanation of the set size effects on learning found in previous studies (McAndrews & Moscovitch, 1985; Meulemans & Van der Linden, 1997), because, as we argue, set size was confounded with statistical coverage in these studies. nt]mis|This research was supported by a grant from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research. We thank Jarry Porsius for his help with the data analyses.
  • Poletiek, F. H. (2009). Popper's Severity of Test as an intuitive probabilistic model of hypothesis testing. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32(1), 99-100. doi:10.1017/S0140525X09000454.
  • Poletiek, F. H., & Wolters, G. (2009). What is learned about fragments in artificial grammar learning? A transitional probabilities approach. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(5), 868-876. doi:10.1080/17470210802511188.

    Abstract

    Learning local regularities in sequentially structured materials is typically assumed to be based on encoding of the frequencies of these regularities. We explore the view that transitional probabilities between elements of chunks, rather than frequencies of chunks, may be the primary factor in artificial grammar learning (AGL). The transitional probability model (TPM) that we propose is argued to provide an adaptive and parsimonious strategy for encoding local regularities in order to induce sequential structure from an input set of exemplars of the grammar. In a variant of the AGL procedure, in which participants estimated the frequencies of bigrams occurring in a set of exemplars they had been exposed to previously, participants were shown to be more sensitive to local transitional probability information than to mere pattern frequencies.
  • Poletiek, F. H. (2008). Het probleem van escalerende beschuldigingen [Boekbespreking van Kindermishandeling door H. Crombag en den Hartog]. Maandblad voor Geestelijke Volksgezondheid, (2), 163-166.
  • Van den Bos, E., & Poletiek, F. H. (2008). Effects of grammar complexity on artificial grammar learning. Memory & Cognition, 36(6), 1122-1131. doi:10.3758/MC.36.6.1122.

    Abstract

    The present study identified two aspects of complexity that have been manipulated in the implicit learning literature and investigated how they affect implicit and explicit learning of artificial grammars. Ten finite state grammars were used to vary complexity. The results indicated that dependency length is more relevant to the complexity of a structure than is the number of associations that have to be learned. Although implicit learning led to better performance on a grammaticality judgment test than did explicit learning, it was negatively affected by increasing complexity: Performance decreased as there was an increase in the number of previous letters that had to be taken into account to determine whether or not the next letter was a grammatical continuation. In particular, the results suggested that implicit learning of higher order dependencies is hampered by the presence of longer dependencies. Knowledge of first-order dependencies was acquired regardless of complexity and learning mode.
  • Van den Bos, E., & Poletiek, F. H. (2008). Intentional artificial grammar learning: When does it work? European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 20(4), 793-806. doi:10.1080/09541440701554474.

    Abstract

    Actively searching for the rules of an artificial grammar has often been shown to produce no more knowledge than memorising exemplars without knowing that they have been generated by a grammar. The present study investigated whether this ineffectiveness of intentional learning could be overcome by removing dual task demands and providing participants with more specific instructions. The results only showed a positive effect of learning intentionally for participants specifically instructed to find out which letters are allowed to follow each other. These participants were also unaffected by a salient feature. In contrast, for participants who did not know what kind of structure to expect, intentional learning was not more effective than incidental learning and knowledge acquisition was guided by salience.
  • Wolters, G., & Poletiek, F. H. (2008). Beslissen over aangiftes van seksueel misbruik bij kinderen. De Psycholoog, 43, 29-29.

Share this page